Lord Ouseley

Sir Herman George Ouseley, Knight, having been created Baron Ouseley, of Peckham Rye in the London Borough of Southwark, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rix and the Lord Dholakia.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff

Ilora Gillian Finlay, having been created Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, of Llandaff in the County of South Glamorgan, for life--Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Walton of Detchant and the Lord McColl of Dulwich.
	Several Lords--Took the Oath.

Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to accompany Her Majesty the Queen on the state visit to the Channel Islands on Thursday, 12th July, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Asylum Seekers: Female Persecution

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to reports that some asylum seekers have left their home countries to escape female genital mutilation, and that some of their claims for asylum have been rejected on the ground that they are victims of persecution from individuals, not from the state.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the United Kingdom is quite ready to recognise as refugees those who have been persecuted by non-state agents as well as those persecuted by the state. In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant would have to show that female genital mutilation (FGM) is knowingly tolerated by her government or that the authorities are unable to offer effective protection.

Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that the threat of female genital mutilation should be a ground for asylum in that it constitutes torture and therefore breaches Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Is he aware that asylum has been granted by both the United States and Sweden to women who were threatened by female genital mutilation in their own countries?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are satisfied that the issue of FGM constitutes torture under the Human Rights Act and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is no question about that in our mind as there was no question in the mind of the previous government in that respect. I am aware that the United States and other countries have granted asylum to women based on their claim of the threat of FGM. In the UK we see very few cases based solely on such a threat; usually other factors are also taken into account. However, if noble Lords are aware of any specific cases of persons fleeing persecution with which the authorities are not dealing--it is a criminal offence in this country to carry out such barbaric practices--I hope that they will draw them to my attention.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, can the Minister say how many African countries have banned female circumcision? If there are some who have not banned that loathsome practice, surely women have a case that those states are persecuting them?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is no question about that if the government have not outlawed it. On the other hand, all the states in the United Nations, except for Somalia and the United States, signed up to the convention in respect of children. Whether they have incorporated it into their domestic law is another matter. Among certain sections of the community in some countries in central, eastern and western Africa, including Egypt in the north of Africa, that barbaric practice still takes place. However, it is not necessarily done with the connivance or acceptance of the government. That is an issue that would be raised in any asylum application. Each case has to be taken in the round. There is no doubt that it is a barbaric practice which ought to be outlawed across the planet by every country and we will do what we can to assist women who seek refuge in this country.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his strong statement on FGM, which is welcome. However, repeatedly during the passage of the legislation, we on these Benches were assured that those who were subject to torture, whether FGM or other kinds, would be treated with particular care with regard to detention. Is the Minister aware that there are still some proven victims of torture who have spent many months in detention and will he be kind enough to look into the matter?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I certainly accept what the noble Baroness says. If she will give me the details of particular cases to which she is referring, I shall have them investigated immediately. Besides FGM, forced abortions also constitute torture. We recognise that there are such practices. The independent appellate authorities in relation to immigration in this country have accepted that it is important to categorise women who apply for refuge on that basis.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I support and welcome the strong words that the Minister has spoken on this subject. If possible, can he tell the House how many claims have been rejected recently on the ground set out in the Question? I believe that they number few, if any.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not aware of a specific figure. I have looked into the matter. Applications for asylum are not specific; they are not categorised in relation to a particular reason. Many reasons are given. FGM would be part and parcel of a normal asylum application in terms of fleeing persecution, but there may be other matters to be taken into account. However, if FGM does not fit within the specific rules of the 1951 convention, and it was proved that it was taking place, we would grant exceptional leave to remain, even if refugee status were not granted.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when a country is in civil war, like many in Africa, there is no effective government to protect victims of FGM, whatever the laws may be on paper? Would such victims then be given consideration for asylum?

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is most certainly the case. Where there is a civil war in a country, it is difficult for anyone to argue that there are safe areas in the country. The nature of this barbaric practice may be that it does not take place across a whole country, but simply in an isolated pocket of a community. It may be argued that a woman, or usually a very young female, could be returned to another area of a country; but if the country is racked with civil war, it would be extremely unwise and inhuman to return a person to such a country.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there any way of protecting girls who are taken from this country to African countries for this horrible mutilation?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the honest answer is no. Girls are removed from this country for forcible marriage and other practices under the guise of a holiday. A girl may find out the real reason for her visit only on arrival in another country. Passports are removed from girls and effectively they are locked away. Access to consular facilities is virtually non-existent and, of course, it is not practical for them to visit such facilities. One cannot sugar-coat this. The answer is no. If a young girl is removed from this country, she is removed from the protection of the UK authorities.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many countries are involved in this appalling practice?

Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I cannot. I believe that it takes place in regions of eastern, central and western African countries and in a north-African country, Egypt. I do not believe that the practice exists all across those countries, but it usually takes place in isolated pockets of small communities. Africa is not the only place where it happens; it takes place in other parts of the world. The Government, through the Department of Health, are working with at least one NGO in this country to help and to facilitate a wider dispersal of information among professionals about this barbaric practice so that we can pick up the problem when people come into this country.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the countries where FGM is practised it is usual for a girl to be pursued from her home village or town to other parts of the country by relatives determined to inflict this frightful torture on her? Therefore, in such cases, it would not be satisfactory to send a woman back to another part of the country from where she hailed originally. Does the Minister also agree that it is necessary to put on the Home Office country reports the fact that a country is not able to afford adequate protection so that that information is available to entry certificate officers and to others in the IND?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take on board, in a positive way, the noble Lord's suggestion about the in-country reports. However, it is true that young females sometimes flee their villages, with the protection of their parents who do not want FGM to take place, when people in the community seek them out for that purpose. Each case and each claim will have to be judged on its individual circumstances and merits. It is not possible to give a blanket, global reply. However, I take on board the latter part of the suggestion made by the noble Lord.

Child Poverty

Lord Northbourne: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their pledge to eradicate child poverty relates only to the financial poverty of families or whether they also intend to address the cycle of disadvantage and deprivation which affects many families.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, both. Our Opportunity For All report sets out our commitment to tackle child poverty in all its forms. Our reforms to the tax and benefit system will improve family incomes and we are also helping parents to move into work. In order to break the cycle of disadvantage we are also committed to raising educational standards, tackling health inequalities and supporting young people at risk.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that encouraging Answer and I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing. I agree that lack of money can be a serious impediment to overcoming other kinds of disadvantage, but does the noble Baroness agree that some forms of disadvantage are not associated with lack of money; for example, being a member of a non-functional family? Such a situation leads to lack of self-confidence, lack of social skills and lack of motivation to undertake education.
	If those and similar problems are not addressed at the same time as addressing the financial problems of poor families, is there not little chance that such children will be able to pull themselves out of disadvantage? All the money that the Government are spending on defeating poverty in the short term will then be wasted in the long term.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said. It is the case that the poorest and most vulnerable children are those of lone parents. We know that the daughters of lone parents do well--they stay on at school, do not become pregnant and go into work--if their mothers are in work. The sons of lone parents do well--they do not get into trouble with the police, do not truant, stay on at school, gain qualifications and go into work--if they are in contact with their natural fathers. There is therefore a combination of family income and family support.
	That is why I am so pleased, as I am sure is the noble Lord, that the Home Office is funding Fathers Direct to the tune of £250,000. That organisation was started by Jack O'Sullivan and Adrienne Burgess, highly reputed people in the sector, in particular to help further develop parenting skills so that we can ensure that deprivation and disadvantage are not handed down the generations.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we all agree that it is important to tackle poverty in all its forms. The Government have expressed their main objective in quantitative terms and have said that, as a result of the Chancellor's measures, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the year. However, it may well be that many people do not understand the changes made by the Chancellor, which in some cases are extraordinarily complex. What assumption has been made about the take-up of the various benefits which are designed to achieve the Government's objective?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as regards the figure of 1.2 million, had the previous government's 1997 policies continued until today, and had this Government's policies of a minimum wage, working families' tax credit and increases in child benefit not come into play, 1.2 million more children would be in poverty.
	As regards the take-up of benefits, the minimum wage applies across the board, as do child benefit and income support rates. Furthermore, I am most pleased to be able to report that when we came into power a child of 10 received from income support £17 a week but today that child receives £34 a week. The sum has doubled in four years.
	Noble Lords will therefore realise that we are tackling the problems of poverty and of disadvantage.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I welcome Her Majesty's Government's pledge to eradicate child poverty and I am aware that the Government are doing a great deal of work on appropriate levels of minimum income guarantees for pensioners and minimum wages for labourers and workers. However, will the Minister now encourage the Government to undertake the necessary research to achieve minimum income standards for those living in poverty to sustain healthy living? Such research has yet to be done.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate will know, it is the Government's intention later this year to introduce a Bill which will allow us to develop the integrated child credit. That will bring together, both for adults and children, the support for children elements, the income support elements and what currently is working families' tax credit. As a result, families of working age will be able to move from a minimum wage to a minimum income. I hope that that will meet the right reverend Prelate's concerns.

Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the second half of the Question on the Order Paper, will the Minister give the House the latest available figures for unemployment among black males under the age of 25?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Earl was able to give me notice of his question so that I can share the information with the House. There will be a Statement later today on the situation, particularly in Bradford, but the figures are striking. Only 31 per cent of young ethnic minority men and women between the ages of 16 and 24 in Bradford, for example, are in work. Nationally, for ethnic minority young people the figure is 40 per cent. For the country as a whole, including people of all communities, the figure is 65 per cent. In other words, the figure in Bradford is less than half the national average.

Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I welcome the money which the Government have given to help children, but does the Minister agree that it is very important to support the families and to encourage marriage? We have a situation in which nearly 40 per cent of live births are outside marriage and that creates a situation in which far more young people are likely to get into difficulties. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that it is important that the Government should support marriage as well as children?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the number of teenage unmarried mothers, to use the old phrase, has fallen by 4 per cent since 1997 and the number of those young women now in either education or work has risen from 17 per cent to 31 per cent in the past three or four years. Therefore, the situation in which children are having children has been improving for our society.
	However, what matters to me is that children thrive. They can do so in a variety of relationships, which can be marriage ideally but also steady and robust cohabitation. What matters is that children thrive and families come in all shapes and sizes. It is important to the Government not only that we ensure a decent income for children through the new integrated child credit and that the parents have the opportunity for work through the new deals and so forth, but that the life chances associated with poverty in terms of education, health and well-being are also tackled. I hope that the whole House will join with us in that programme.

Party Political Broadcasts

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they will ensure that smaller political parties have access to free broadcasting time during general elections.

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the allocation of free broadcasting time during general elections is ultimately the responsibility of the broadcasters and the broadcasting regulatory authorities; that is, the BBC governors, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and the Welsh Authority. It is their responsibility to determine the allocation of time in the light of their obligations to maintain due impartiality. They are also required to have regard to any views of the Electoral Commission.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is it not ultimately the responsibility of the Government, through Parliament, to ensure that democracy and elections in this country are fairly conducted?
	Are they aware that during the previous election the Green Party of England and Wales was denied broadcast time on Channel 4, Channel 5 and independent radio and that part of that was tied up with a peculiar ruling which stated that they could not have it because they were not fielding candidates in Scotland? As it is the Green Party of England and Wales, and as there is a totally independent Green Party of Scotland over which it has no control, that is a most unfortunate expression of responsibility on behalf of the authorities. Is it not ultimately the Government's responsibility to ensure that time is given?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I recognise that the Green Party had a particular difficulty relating to national broadcast given the separate status of that party in Scotland. I understand that the broadcasters sought to accommodate it and that the ITC did not uphold its complaint about the refusal of Channels 4 and 5 to offer a broadcast. I believe that, quite properly, the allocation of air time is not the responsibility of the Government. It is for broadcasters to determine the allocations within their general duties and discretion in dealing with these rather difficult matters and for the court to uphold that.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the smaller parties would be much better advised not to press for party political broadcasts, which serve only to put off voters but, instead, for a change in our electoral system which means that if they get more votes they may start to get a few more people in Parliament?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for the smaller political parties. I am sure that with imagination and creativity all political parties can make high quality party political or electoral broadcasts that attract voters.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there are rules to prevent political parties from inciting religious and racial hatred through their broadcasts?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes--the ordinary criminal law.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, while it is clearly right that the Government should not intervene in the allocation of electoral broadcasts, does the Minister agree that the rules as applied were somewhat unfair to the Green Party which, although it fielded candidates in more than one-sixth of constituencies across the United Kingdom as a whole, was refused the right to a broadcast on Radio 2 and Radio 4 simply because its associated party in Scotland fielded candidates in less than one-sixth of the constituencies in Scotland?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that it is for the Government to pronounce on this matter but for the political parties to negotiate a sensible deal with the broadcasters. We have done it in that way in this country for a long time and we believe that that is the right way to do it, rather than that the Government should pronounce on an issue of this kind.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the strengths of our democracy has been that parties have not been able to purchase air time on either radio or television? Can the noble Baroness confirm that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist any idea of political parties buying air time on either television or radio?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. One of the reasons we have election broadcasts in this country is that we do not allow political advertising by the parties during general elections, and long may that last.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to Mr Peter Kellner's article in the Observer on 11th June, if the percentage of votes given to the Labour and Conservative Parties at the past election had been exactly reversed the result would have been Labour 301 seats and Conservatives 289 seats? In the light of that information, will the noble Baroness consider her reply that electoral reform is an issue for smaller parties?

Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am glad to say that I did not see Mr Peter Kellner's article. However, I believe that the question put by the noble Earl is rather a long way from the one on the Order Paper which is about the regulations for party electoral broadcasts.

Livestock: Movement Restrictions

Baroness Byford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy on the 20-day standstill movement proposal for livestock animals.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are reviewing their proposals on the standstill movement in the light of responses to the consultation exercise. We have decided to make this issue part of a total approach for the exit from the current foot and mouth disease outbreak to future disease control which will also include biosecurity, animal identification and licensing. This will allow fuller veterinary and economic assessments to be carried out. In the mean-time, current movement licensing controls will continue.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister's response. Presumably, there will be a public inquiry so that the Government can obtain the necessary information. This year, virtually all agricultural and county shows have been cancelled because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. First, does the Minister appreciate the implications that any future 20-day standstill may have for those shows? Secondly, does the noble Lord accept the implications that that will have in turn for the trade and specialist stands, which get most of their business at those shows and need to plan now for next year?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness will appreciate that it is very difficult for the agricultural sector as a whole to plan for next year given that we have yet finally to eradicate the disease and that the process for movement beyond the disease has yet to be determined. Clearly, even if there were no further new outbreaks, there would still be some restrictions on movement. That will continue into the autumn. We need to use that period to assess the long-term restrictions on movement and whether the 20-day standstill period, or an alternative measure which achieves the same result in terms of the spread of the disease among animals, is appropriate. That is a matter that we need to address in the coming weeks.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that in this outbreak of foot and mouth disease the major problem has been the movement of sheep? If there is to be a 20-day standstill period, how do Her Majesty's Government intend to trace all the animals which have been moved from one premises to another, bearing in mind that one sheep looks very much like another? At the moment, sheep are marked only with the holding number of their birth rather than as individual animals.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I had always understood that the noble Countess was better than I at distinguishing one sheep from another. Nevertheless, I take her general point. Clearly, traceability and the way in which we manage the total national flock in future will need to be part of the long-term solution. The 20-day standstill period and what exemptions are appropriate in relation to shows or other areas where animals intermingle are matters that require long, hard thought and discussion with the industry. On the face of it, however, had there been a 20-day standstill period, the number of cases in the current outbreak of foot and mouth would have been halved. One cannot ignore that evidence, albeit that there will be other more damaging consequences to which the noble Countess has referred.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, can the Minister ensure that his department's reaction is proportionate and that the achievement of biosecurity does not threaten the future of livestock markets which are crucial? Is the Minister aware that the proposal to introduce electronic tagging will be a disproportionately high cost to smaller sheep farmers because start-up costs are the same whether one has 500 or 2,000 ewes?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the disproportionate cost to sheep farmers of all kinds has been the epidemic itself. Measures to ensure the long-term health of our sheep flock will need to take into account the fact that traceability and identification may need to be part of a future structure. All these matters need to be assessed in terms of proportionality, cost and practicability, including any restrictions on movement over and above those required to deal with the immediate problems.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have been to two conferences in the south of Scotland attended by all the farmers who lost stock in that area? Does the noble Lord accept that not one of them was in favour of the 20-day standstill and considered it to be quite impracticable and that they felt that there were many more important issues to be resolved by the Government, particularly relating to controls on imports from countries where foot and mouth is endemic?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I certainly accept that the vast majority of responses to the consultation indicated that there was severe disquiet, to put it at its mildest, about the proposals relating to the standstill. Nevertheless, the issue which the proposal is supposed to address needs to be resolved if we are to retain a healthy flock in the longer term. As to import controls, clearly both at national and European level there are some measures which need to be addressed.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all agricultural shows have been cancelled and that, for example, the Royal Lancashire Show is continuing? Is the Minister aware that that has been achieved by expanding the features of the show relating to horses and poultry? I am sure that my noble friend will join with me in wishing it every success.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always happy to join my noble friend in wishing anything that happens in Lancashire success. I trust that the show will be a success, albeit that this year the show is, regrettably, deprived of its livestock features.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that about 300,000 hill lambs are due off the hills of Scotland and northern England in August and September? Many of these lambs are bought by dealers to distribute to other areas for fattening. What do the Government propose to do about that in view of the 20-day restriction?
	Perhaps I may also ask whether the Government have any plans to restrict imports because the hill lambs are normally destined for export and they cannot be exported. It therefore seems to me that the Government should take some responsible action about imports.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a very difficult and complex problem. Across the country as a whole, there are rather more sheep and lambs involved than the figure the noble Lord used. We are looking very seriously at the matter. I had lengthy discussions with the NFU yesterday about possible ways of dealing with the serious problems that the movement of sheep in the autumn from the "highlands to the lowlands"--to simplify the issue--will cause. There will undoubtedly be some restrictions on movement; there will be some reluctance to take lambs on to the lowlands; and, in all probability, there will be no export market particularly for the lambs to which the noble Lord referred. All those matters need to be addressed. We are addressing them as a matter of urgency. I anticipate some announcements before the end of the month.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, immediately after the Second Reading of the British Overseas Territories Bill my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on the disturbances in Bradford. After this my noble friend Lord Bach will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Type 45 destroyers.

British Overseas Territories Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	I am delighted that one of my first tasks as Minister for the Overseas Territories is to introduce to this House the British Overseas Territories Bill. The Bill seeks to fulfil a commitment to grant British citizenship, and with it the right of abode in the United Kingdom, to British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying overseas territories.
	Many of your Lordships will be familiar with Britain's overseas territories. There are 14 of them. They are Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena and Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus and the Turks and Caicos Islands. They include some of the most prosperous and some of the most remote islands in the world. They range from the highly developed business, financial and tourist centres of some of the Caribbean territories and Bermuda to the pristine wilderness of Antarctica. They have many differences. But they have one thing in common: their link with Britain.
	In March 1999 the British Government published a White Paper entitled Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories. The White Paper was the culmination of a wide-ranging review of our relationship with the overseas territories. It laid the foundations for a new relationship, built on the fundamental principles of self-determination, the acceptance of responsibilities on both sides and the greatest possible control for the people of the overseas territories over their own lives. It set out an agenda explaining what each side expected of the partnership in terms of support for good governance, sustainable social and economic development and protection of the environment.
	Over the past two years, in close consultation with the territories, we have moved that agenda forward. The nature of our relationship has evolved in line with the principles in the White Paper, and we have made progress across a broad range of issues, including constitutional reform, human rights, the environment and financial regulation. An annual meeting of the Overseas Territories Consultative Council provides a forum in which Chief Ministers can to get to know their British ministerial counterparts and discuss with them, and with each other, common problems. The next meeting will be in September. Our relationship with the territories has changed, and continues to change.
	A cornerstone of the new approach set out in the White Paper was the proposal to grant British citizenship to British Dependent Territories citizens in qualifying territories, to give proper recognition of their British connection and to lift the limitations which BDTC status carries with it. The Bill is a fulfilment of that commitment. The proposed citizenship provisions in the Bill apply to all territories except the sovereign base areas of Cyprus which are excluded by virtue of their special status as military bases.
	We estimate that around 200,000 people could become British citizens on commencement of the Act. The number is an estimate because it is as yet impossible to tell exactly how many people will benefit. Nationality is a complicated area and beyond those who already hold British Dependent Territories passports will be others who will come forward after commencement on the basis of the naturalisation or registration criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981.
	But I should make clear that there is no compulsion about acquiring British citizenship. We believe that most people will want it, but British Overseas Territories citizens, as the Bill proposes they be known in future, will have the option to renounce British citizenship, and to retain their current status, should they so wish.
	The Bill at the same time formally changes the name of the territories to overseas territories, and British Dependent Territories citizens who live there to British Overseas Territories citizens. It is no longer appropriate to use terms such as dependent territory or colony, terms which are outdated and which fail to reflect the nature of our relationship and partnership with the overseas territories. The Bill alters those terms in the British Nationality Act 1981 and will add a new definition of British Overseas Territory in the Interpretation Act 1978 so that that term can be conveniently used in all future legislation.
	Residents of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar already have or are entitled to British citizenship, and we do not expect all BDTCs in other territories to want to apply for new passports describing them as British citizens. I have already said that those who prefer to continue with their British Overseas Territories passports will be free to do so. We expect the "take-up rates" to vary from territory to territory and according to circumstance.
	Let me explain more fully the effect of the Bill and the timeframe we envisage. Most people living in the overseas territories are currently British Dependent Territories citizens. As soon as the Bill has passed through Parliament and received Royal Assent, Clauses 1 and 2, which deal with the changes of name to British Overseas Territories and British Overseas Territories citizen, will take effect. At that point all references to the territories will be formally changed. I say "formally" because the description "overseas territories" is already in common usage. Clauses 1 and 2 deal only with changes of name and involve no substantive change of law.
	Clause 3 explains how British Overseas Territories citizens will automatically become British citizens, with the right of abode in the UK, on commencement of the citizenship provisions of the Bill. In other words, they will not have to apply for citizenship, although they will have to apply for a British passport to show documentary evidence of their new status and to facilitate travel. The date of commencement will be decided by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by statutory instrument, once we are satisfied that the practicalities for implementation of the citizenship provisions are in place. We need, for instance, to ensure that arrangements for passport issue are agreed and that the staff who will deal with passport and nationality questions are properly trained.
	Clause 4 explains how British citizenship can be acquired by people living in the overseas territories after commencement of the legislation. There are of course many people living in the overseas territories who are not BDTCs. The provisions of the new legislation do not apply to them. To qualify for British citizenship they would first have to qualify for British Overseas Territories citizenship by connection with the territory in which they reside under existing nationality law as set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. If their application is successful they will thereafter be free to apply for British citizenship. There is no automatic entitlement to British citizenship for such people. The granting of British citizenship is at the discretion of the Home Secretary. That is the effect of Clause 4 of the Bill.
	Clause 5 further amends the 1981 Act so as to provide for acquisition of British citizenship for future generations having the requisite connection with any of the qualifying overseas territories. British citizenship will mean that British Dependent Territories citizens will have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement and residence, and with it the opportunity to work in European Union member states. In short, my Lords, they will have the same rights as you or I. They will be able to visit friends and relations or travel for business or employment without being subject to immigration controls. I know that this has long been a bone of contention. BDTCs have never seen it as fair that they should be subject to immigration control and have to pass through the non-EU channel on arrival at UK ports and airports.
	Some noble Lords may be wondering whether, after the passage of this legislation, they will have the right of abode in the overseas territories. I regret that the answer is no. The right of abode is non-reciprocal. The territories which fall within the scope of the Bill are for the most part small islands. In consultations on the content of the Bill the governments of the territories concerned made clear that granting British and European citizens the right of abode in their territories would risk fundamentally altering the social, cultural and economic fabric of the territories. They are simply too small to cope. The Bill does not mention reciprocity. I am therefore taking this opportunity to put on record, which may come as a surprise and disappointment to some noble Lords, that the provisions of the Bill on right of abode, for good reasons, are non-reciprocal.
	This legislation is eagerly awaited. Ever since publication of the 1999 White Paper my predecessor, Patricia Scotland, and I have received a steady flow of letters from members of the public, from the people of the overseas territories. from the many friends and organisations that represent their interests in this country and from Members of both Houses urging the Government to deliver on the commitment to grant British citizenship. Many noble Lords and Members of the other place have put down Questions.
	It has not until now been possible to make parliamentary time available in what has been, as I know noble Lords are aware, a busy legislative programme. But I am delighted that it has now been possible to do so. I hope that the support which noble Lords have shown in the past will now translate into support on the Floor of the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Baroness Amos.)

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we on these Benches thank the Minister for her clear and explicit description of the Bill. This is indeed a very busy time for those involved in international affairs. Next week your Lordships will be in Committee on the International Development Bill, and the European Communities (Amendment) Bill will be in Committee in another place on Wednesday. That Bill will no doubt be hotly debated. I do not imagine that this Bill will be as contentious.
	Before I move to the main body of my speech, I would mention that we wish that the Bill had not been so long in coming to the House. It has been eagerly awaited, as the Minister said. The White Paper was published in March 1999. It has taken until July 2001 to appear as a government Bill. The Government cannot take any credit for that delay. We believe that an explanation is due. After two years and three months, however, we welcome the Bill. But there are issues on which we shall be seeking clarification. I shall come to those shortly.
	As we heard from the Minister, the main thrust of the Bill concerns citizenship and the right of abode. We are not wholly concerned with the change of name from "British Dependent Territories" to "Overseas Territories" other than to say that I suspect the Government have bowed, as usual, to the political correctness agenda. I notice that the Government have also abandoned all the human rights issues that were raised in the White Paper. Does that not send mixed signals? Are there not several overseas territories that would find it hard to survive without the support they receive from the United Kingdom? Indeed, are not all "overseas dependent territories" dependent on the United Kingdom for defence? I do not recall the United Nations coming to the aid of the Falkland Islanders in 1982.
	The islanders of St Helena are dependent on the United Kingdom for their transport links with the rest of the world. The Chagos Archipelago, better known as the British Indian Ocean Territory, is claimed by both Mauritius and the Seychelles. The US lease is due to expire in 2016. While that is some 15 years in the future, we may well be called to defend the rights of those people who may wish to return there. Only a few weeks ago a court here in London ruled that the inhabitants were illegally removed and have the right to return. Most were originally removed to Mauritius, which will strengthen that country's claim. The islanders of Montserrat were dependent on United Kingdom aid when nature took its violent course, spewing volcanic lava and ash over half the island and leaving its capital destroyed. We do not begrudge such military assistance or such emergency aid, but it does reinforce the dependency theory.
	To return to St Helena, the current problem faced by the island is one of dependency which can, to a degree, be broken. As we speak, a decision is being made as to the future transport link, which I mentioned earlier. The Government, sadly, are set on providing the cheapest option. That will mean spending some £26 million on replacing a passenger/cargo ship and will involve, as at present, a yearly subsidy to operate the service. A recent recommendation, which will cost some £38 million in the short term but holds out the possibility of earning revenue in the long term, is to build an airport on the island. The White Paper recognised the problem when it stated:
	"In 1997, 8,698 tourists visited St Helena; but without an airport, no safe anchorage for yachts in heavy seas, and the limited capacity of the passenger/cargo ship RMS St Helena, tourism is unlikely to develop rapidly".
	In a Written Answer last week the Secretary of State for International Development stated:
	"The St. Helena Leisure Company has held preliminary discussions with the St. Helena Government and my Department about its proposals to provide leisure facilities on the island. At the request of the St. Helena Government, we have made available to the Company a copy of the recent report of the 'Comparative Study of Air and Sea Access' for St. Helena. We understand that the Company wishes to take account of the study's findings in further formulating its proposals to the St. Helena Government".--[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/01; col. 264W.]
	It does not take a genius to work out the way that the dice will fall. No airport equals no tourism. Give the islanders an airport and the significant boost to the local economy which ensues will be greatly appreciated, not to mention the much speedier transport link. The Government have the opportunity to give the islanders more economic independence. I can assure the noble Baroness that, for the sake of an extra £12 million, we on these Benches would not stand in the way.
	The main issue of the Bill concerns the granting of citizenship. We welcome the move, as do the overseas territories. There are many benefits which will now be made available to those who are soon to become full British citizens. First, from a development perspective, we should all welcome the easing of the education restrictions currently endured by those wishing to study in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may not be aware of the differences in the fee structure.
	For example, King's College, London, offers a very good degree in medicine. I should declare an interest here as the Chairman of Council of King's College. For a UK or EU citizen, the fees for the first four years amount to some £4,300, a figure set by the Government. For other citizens, the fees for the first year alone are £10,000, after which they rise significantly. Noble Lords may be astounded to learn that the total sum of the fees amounts to some £54,200. Through the Bill we shall be promoting tertiary education at an affordable level and that is to be welcomed.
	Secondly, in 1998, my noble friend Lord Waddington, a distinguished former Governor of Bermuda, informed the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the vast majority of white Bermudians of Anglo-Saxon descent hold British citizenship, but that the vast majority of black Bermudians do not. He went on to point out that,
	"At Gatwick the whites go through the British and EU Channel. The black Bermudians, even Premiers and Cabinet Ministers, are lumped in with the foreigners and queue to obtain leave to enter. It is scarcely surprising that this causes immense resentment and black Bermudians simply cannot understand why as a matter of common courtesy those for whom Britain has a responsibility [belonging as they do in a British Dependent Territory] are not treated as favourably as foreigners for whom Britain has no responsibility".
	As the Minister said, this situation will no longer exist--and rightly so.
	I said in opening that we welcome the Bill and would not seek to obstruct it. However, during its passage we shall be seeking clarification on several issues. They concern the fine detail of the Bill and I look forward to the Government providing the necessary assurances.
	The Government claim that the number of people who will be eligible for UK citizenship is around 200,000. While that is the approximate population for the entire British Dependent Territories, does that figure include others who may qualify, for example, by rights of marriage?
	Perhaps I may put a number of questions to the Minister. What is the cost of bestowing British citizenship? The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that,
	"The intention is that the costs of implementation will be recovered from the fees charged for nationality registration and naturalisation and passport issuing".
	Will the price vary from territory to territory? What evidence will be required when applying for British citizenship? Will there be equality between the sexes? Will there be in place a framework for the settlement of disputes? To what will British citizenship actually entitle the holder? What voting rights will be acquired, both nationally and in Europe? How will the Bill affect the pension rights of those applying for British citizenship?
	In the White Paper, much is made of human rights:
	"Overseas Territory legislation should comply with the same international obligations to which Britain is subject, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights".
	Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Bill will comply fully with those obligations?
	Judicial corporal punishment still exists in some territories, as does capital punishment. Indeed, the use of the death penalty in the Caribbean would appear to be on the increase. Have all the overseas territories removed from their statute books capital punishment for treason and piracy? Have the concerns over homosexual discrimination been addressed?
	Furthermore, what of the financial concerns that were raised in the White Paper? Several of the territories rely heavily on offshore banking. Are there to be any implications for them? Will they be affected by EU legislation in this field?
	As I said earlier, we very much regret the delay in bringing forward the Bill. Your Lordships' House and the people of the dependent territories deserve an explanation as to the reason for this unnecessary delay.
	We on these Benches support the aims of the Bill and hope that the Government can provide the House with the assurances that we have sought and that this long-awaited Bill can proceed to the other place. We do not expect to receive answers to all the questions that have been raised, but we look forward to hearing the Government's responses and to debating them in Committee.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the first occasion on which I debated this issue was during the debate on a Private Member's Bill tabled by the late Lord Bonham-Carter who, from these Benches, tried to initiate a Bill strikingly similar to the Bill before us today. However, a few years ago that Bill was rejected under another administration--probably for the reason that, at the time, Hong Kong still came under the aegis of an overseas territory.
	In contrast to the previous speaker, I should like to welcome the speed with which this Bill has been put forward, given how many other Bills have been dropped from the Queen's Speech. It is a positive move to have brought this Bill forward. Indeed, the speed with which it has reached this House has caused us a number of problems. I was hoping to be able to follow the lengthy debates in the House of Commons and then to read Hansard, thereby becoming an expert on the subject before it was brought before noble Lords, but that was not to be.
	In the light of that, perhaps I may begin by thanking the Minister for our meeting, during which she provided the answers to many of our questions. That marked a positive way forward and has removed the need for us to table certain amendments.
	Of prime importance is the fact that the Bill has been welcomed by the dependent territories. On that basis, it is clear that we shall have few difficulties with the Bill. Indeed, the Short Title of the Bill is tightly drawn, and it is those issues which have been left out of the legislation rather than those which are included that are causing us a degree of concern.
	As an archaeologist, I know that citizenship has been a major issue in the past. I was reminded of the fact that, in 212 AD, Caracalla conferred citizenship on every person living within the boundaries of the Roman empire. However, the Roman writers of the time attributed this to the fact that it would increase the tax base of the empire. However, that is not the case with regard to the matter before us this evening.
	I should like to raise one issue, which may be seen as slightly frivolous, although I did draw attention to it during my remarks on the gracious Speech. The Foreign Office has asked the dependent territories to pay for their governors' uniforms. At first I was tempted to leave the matter alone, but the briefing I have received informs me that, because of the terrible situation on Montserrat, the island is economically dependent on the largesse of DfID.
	In her new role wearing two hats, can the Minister confirm that, if the governor requires a new uniform, he will have to approach the noble Baroness at DfID? However, the FCO is charging this amount of money, so what will be the situation in Montserrat if DfID is asked to pay for the uniform? I ask because there may be a slight conflict of interests.
	I have a problem with the number of acronyms used in the Bill. The trend towards acronyms seems to grow exponentially with every Bill. It is something which started in the Army, and I must admit that I have a degree of difficulty with them. If Bills containing similar numbers of acronyms are to be brought forward in the future, perhaps we could have a foreword in the Explanatory Notes listing each and every acronym.
	The Minister alluded to two areas of particular concern to us which lie outside the scope of the Bill. Our first concern relates to the issue of British overseas citizens, especially those in Uganda and Kenya. This matter has been on the boil for quite some time. Our major worry is that some children of British overseas citizens--especially in Kenya--are now stateless citizens. They are denied Kenyan citizenship under Kenyan law, and under our own rules they are denied the status of British overseas citizens.
	Although it concerns only a small group of children, it is an issue which could be looked at in the area of human rights. I understand that a case may be going before the European Court. The matter obviously does not fall under the jurisdiction of the European Convention on Human Rights because it is happening outside Europe, but it is an issue of great concern. Kenya should be made aware of its responsibilities under the UN convention to reduce the number of stateless persons. However, if no other means can be found to achieve this end, will the Government bring forward a Bill to extend the right granted under this Bill to this small group of people? At the moment they are prisoners with no access to travel documents. They have neither a Kenyan passport nor a British passport.
	The other area of concern relates to dependants in the British Indian Ocean Territories. When the ruling came about in November or December that the British Indian Ocean Territory (No. 1) Ordinance 1971 was unlawful, it raised a question in my mind. Under the law in Mauritius, those born after 11th March 1968 would become citizens of Mauritius. This affected the children of members of the Ilois tribe who were moved to Mauritius. However, if it turns out that they were moved illegally, does that not change their status? Would they not then be seen as dependent territory citizens? If such is the case, it is quite important because if they are to return to the Chagos Islands, they could be refused entry on the ground that they are Mauritian citizens rather than deported British dependent citizens. Those are the two issues I wish particularly to raise.
	There are many positive aspects to the Bill. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that it will make life easier for many dependent territories citizens so far as concerns travel documents. I know that the citizens of Montserrat--3,500 of whom are resident in the United Kingdom at the moment--have had difficulty in travelling and have had to obtain a visa to go to France. This is because of the wording on their passports. The Bill will change that situation.
	I have one final question--I promise not to ask any further questions--and that is: as the citizens of Montserrat have leave to stay in this country because of the natural disaster that is taking place there, will they be eligible to vote in this country? Obviously members of other dependent territories will not have the right to vote because their place of residence is outside this country. I merely wish to know because this Bill may very well change their status.
	We on these Benches welcome the Bill. We very much hope that in the future there will be a Bill to correct the injustices and anomalies presented by the situation of some British overseas citizens.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Government on the introduction of the Bill, even though we have had to wait a long time for it. I am sorry that the Conservative government did not introduce a Bill on these lines, but, when I raised this matter during my time in Bermuda, I had to accept the argument that action was not possible in the run-up to the handing over of Hong Kong to China. At the same time, I have to say that in those days officials and Ministers alike made it fairly plain to me that after 1997 they would still take a lot of persuading that action was necessary, which makes me doubly appreciative of what has been done by this Government.
	I shall touch on one matter mentioned by my noble friend Lady Rawlings. When I was in Bermuda I was made acutely aware of the resentment felt by Bermudians who, on travelling to Britain, found themselves waiting in the foreigners' queue at London airport while EU citizens were whisked through immigration ahead of them. In fact, the situation was even worse than that because some Bermudians did find their way into the fast lane--Bermudians with British citizenship or the right of abode in Britain by virtue of ancestry--and they, of course, were white. Bermudians in the slow lane were for the most part black.
	There are other and very much more important ways in which the law at present harms race relations and the efforts to achieve equal opportunity in a place such as Bermuda. If bright young people working in the banks on the island do not get work experience in a far wider environment--in practice, in England--it will be that much less likely that they will be able to equip themselves, through experience overseas, for senior management. In short, opportunities to get more black Bermudians to the top in business, to share economic power with the whites, are being lost. I am sure that that is still the case today. It is something that this Bill will help to put right.
	Bermuda is a prosperous place. There are other overseas territories which are far from prosperous. St Helena, which I visited a year or two ago, is one such. I agree with my noble friend Lady Rawlings about the need to press ahead with plans for an airport. But it will still be some years before those plans can come to fruition, and in the foreseeable future, "Saints" will continue to travel abroad in order to seek work. As everyone knows, at present they go to Ascension, the Falkland Islands and some to Britain. The Bill will open up more job opportunities for them. Again, that is a very good effect of the Bill.
	In the case of St Helena, the Bill will get rid of a long-standing sense of injustice, the "Saints" believing--with much reason--that the immigration Acts of the 1960s and the British Nationality Act robbed them of rights bestowed on them by Royal Charter in the 17th century, a point made very clearly in the White Paper produced by the Government two or so years ago.
	There is one thing that all the dependent territories apart from Gibraltar have in common: they have all had, and still have, the right to become independent states, but instead they have chosen to remain British. Bermuda held a referendum on the subject in 1995, when the people voted overwhelmingly against independence. They remain loyal to Britain. The least that we can do is to repay that loyalty in some measure by giving them a common citizenship with us.
	I have only two questions to put to the Minister. The first relates to the position that will arise if, after the Bill becomes law, one of the overseas territories decides to become independent.
	The White Paper published by the Bermuda Government prior to the referendum on independence in 1995 stated that those enjoying Bermuda status would be Bermuda citizens on independence; however, it was silent on what would happen to their citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. What would happen to the British citizenship granted by this Bill? Would those who have been granted British citizenship lose it? At first blush, it would seem very unfair if they did, but, on the other hand, it might seem very unfair if a favoured few living in that little clutch of dependent territories were allowed to keep their citizenship with the right of free entry into Britain, while the mass of people living in former colonies continued to be denied that right. There seems to me to be a real problem here and I should like some guidance from the Minister.
	I was told the other day at the meeting that the Minister was kind enough to hold in the Foreign Office that what happened would be a matter of consultation and agreement between the British Government and the government of the territory in question. In other words, no assurance could be given that the people would keep their citizenship. I should appreciate the Minister's comments.
	My second question is easier. It relates to Clause 4. I gather that this provision covers the situation where someone comes to, say, Bermuda and after a number of years is granted overseas territories citizenship by the governor and then applies for British citizenship. But does such a person have to apply for overseas territories citizenship first? Why cannot such a person apply direct to the Secretary of State for British citizenship with proof of residence as required by the British Nationality Act? I am not sure why there will not remain an alternative route to British citizenship without having to go through the formality of achieving British Overseas Territories citizenship first.
	Once again, I warmly congratulate the Minister and I wish the Bill speedy progress through Parliament.

Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I wish to add a few words about St Helena, which has already been addressed by a number of speakers. A number of your Lordships will remember that, in 1997, a Bill was passed granting British citizenship to the people who live in St Helena and the dependencies. I regret that the Earl of Iveagh, who introduced the measure and guided it through this House, was the subject of the "cull". But the subject matter is, I think, fresh in your Lordships' memories and it is a pity that the Bill did not progress further at that time. The reason has been given, and I was very glad when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the first day of debate on the gracious Speech, said that this Bill would be introduced. It was, he said, a long-standing promise that would now come forward. I too welcome its appearance.
	The people of St Helena and the dependencies have, of course, no voice in this Parliament; and I do not purport to speak for them. I do, however, commend to your Lordships, if I need to do so, the wisdom of consulting the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association if ever you visit any of the Commonwealth countries. I did this when I went in February this year to all the dependencies and to St Helena itself. I need declare no interest, because I paid for the visit myself. A very interesting and fascinating experience it was.
	The result of the contact with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association was this. I was walking down the main street in Jamestown when I met the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who said, "I hear you'd like to come and talk to the local branch of the CPA. When would it be convenient for you?". I said, "Tuesday afternoon next at 4.30". He said, "Right. I will lay it on". I turned up to find that there were tea and cakes; and, to my astonishment, in the council chamber were assembled the entire Executive Council, including the Governor, and the entire Legislative Council, sitting round the table. Their first point related to citizenship: when was this Bill going to come forward? I could only quote parliamentary Written Answers stating that it was ready, that the Government were waiting for parliamentary time, and so on. They, of course, were disappointed. Now, they will be delighted. The sooner Clause 3 comes into effect, the better.
	They had other things to say as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, touched upon them. The result of this legislation is certainly not going to be that the entire population of St Helena and Tristan da Cunha, let alone Ascension, which has no indigenous population anyway, will arrive in this country. But it has been rightly said that this is the way to provide some employment. The noble Baroness is quite right about the malaise that presently afflicts not so much Tristan da Cunha but St Helena.
	The problem will not be cured by tourism. There is simply not the scope for tourists to arrive or to enjoy themselves without absolutely wrecking the island. What the access agreements and the various steps that have been taken in this respect will lead to are opportunities for people from other countries to invest in the island. There are plenty of things to invest in. There are a number of enterprises which are not run as profitably as they might be; consequently, they do not provide employment. It is not for nothing that many St Helenians have to earn their living in the Falklands and Ascension because there is not enough to do at home. Indeed, tertiary education is a major problem. So there are still many items on the agenda for these islands which cannot be touched in this Bill. The noble Baroness was right to mention them. They are urgent issues upon which depends the welfare of the island.
	Of course, citizenship is a matter of a long-standing grievance. The Royal Charter of 1673 has been mentioned and it is a pity that, since 1962, there has been no progress until now. But, while welcoming the Bill, let us contemplate the fact that we cannot stop here. A sensible decision must be made about how to move forward for the welfare of the people particularly of St Helena and of those who work overseas in order to provide them with a prosperous economy in their own domain which will enable them to carry forward the wonderful British traditions that can be seen in that island. I do not overlook the wonderful British traditions that can be seen in Tristan da Cunha as well.
	We are taking a bold step forward and one that is overdue. But I pray of the noble Baroness: do not let the process stop here, and do not let us take a cheese-paring decision as between DfID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the access agreement. Let us, for goodness sake, take account of what the St Helena Government have to say about this. They are the people who know, and they are the people who are going to have to endure the disbenefits of the wrong decision. I am glad that the noble Baroness mentioned that, but I add my word, on behalf of those to whom I talked, about the welcome that should be given to the Bill. I hope that it gets rapid progress through Parliament.

Baroness Young: My Lords, although it has been much delayed, I, too, should like to welcome the Bill and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for introducing it to the House. I begin by declaring an interest as the president of the West India Committee, but I should hasten to add that that is in no way a financial interest.
	It is right that these micro-states, for which, as my noble friend Lady Rawlings pointed out, we have a continuing responsibility, should have their position regularised following both a decision in 1981 to grant British citizenship to citizens of British Dependent Territories, and one made in 1983 in respect of citizens of the Falkland Islands. I, for one, welcome the new nomenclature "British Overseas Territories", which reflects a better relationship between the countries. I am glad to see that that is the Title to the Bill.
	Before turning to the main points that I wish to make about the overseas territories in the Caribbean, I should like to say how much I agree with the remarks made about St Helena in particular. When I served as a Minister in the Foreign Office, I had ministerial responsibility for the overseas territories, including St Helena--although, alas, I never had an opportunity to visit the island. However, I was very conscious of the great disadvantages that the people suffer, particularly in employment and in education. These are important issues that must be addressed. As far as I am aware, a large proportion of the population have no proper employment. This must be a very unsatisfactory situation. I am pleased to think that the Bill will do something to put right that situation.
	Perhaps I may have the temerity to commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, the possibility of an airport on St Helena. She would do well to read the comments of one of her late colleagues, Lord Shackleton, who was a great proponent of St Helena. He argued on many occasions in this House for an airport on the island. This is not a recent suggestion: it is a possibility that should be considered.
	I began my remarks by saying that I welcome the Bill, and I do. However, like my noble friend Lady Rawlings, I believe that there are a number of matters that require clarification, especially as regards the Caribbean overseas territories to which I shall speak. I was, of course, glad to hear about the granting of the right of abode. That welcome applies also to the fact that we are to set right the particular problems about immigration, and to the clarification as regards passports.
	The process of taking forward this legislation has been slightly erratic, with Chief Ministers first learning about such matters in 1998; and then in more detail when the Government published their White Paper in 1999. There has been very little in the way of further information since then. As a result, this Bill comes to the House with many questions remaining unanswered. There are a number of issues that I should like to raise, although I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer all of them this afternoon. Indeed, they are matters to which we shall return in Committee. I mention them today because they are questions that people have raised with me, and which require answers.
	The Bill confers rights on the citizens of British Overseas Territories, but says nothing about obligations. To all intents and purposes, it implies that the people of the islands--I have in mind the Caribbean, in particular--will become more closely associated with the United Kingdom, but suggests nothing in the way of positive steps to achieve that aim. Citizenship entails rights and obligations. Some of those obligations have already been raised this afternoon; for example, the right to vote. But what about taxation? What about social security? What about standing for Parliament, or being represented in some way in Parliament? What about access to medical care under the National Health Service? All those issues have been raised with me, yet there is no explanation of how the Government intend to deal with them. The people have a right to know.
	Only two weeks ago a respected and senior chief Minister from one of the Caribbean overseas territories, who had just read a copy of the Bill, told me that he was unable to discover what, if anything, the citizens of his territory might expect--or, indeed, have to give up--in return for the grant of citizenship. He suggested that it was less than fair that Britain should grant citizenship without recognising that it, too, had obligations towards its overseas territories. He felt, for example, that it should automatically follow from citizenship that matters such as the training of overseas territories' civil servants--he particularly singled out this point--should be undertaken in the United Kingdom. He suggested that, logically, citizenship should lead to the inclusion of a Caribbean overseas territories' civil servant in, for instance, the UK Permanent Representation in Brussels, so that he or she might look after the interests of the overseas territories in the European Commission. In view of the tremendous economic developments that will flow from the North America Free Trade Area, let alone from the WTO round, this has particular relevance to these small countries.
	The Chief Minister also wanted to know whether students from overseas territories would now be treated as British students in respect of fees. Again, I was most interested to hear what my noble friend said on that point. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, also indirectly raised the issue regarding the training of people from overseas territories in our universities. Surely that suggestion should be welcomed. It is most important for the future of those people. More significantly, he wanted to know how the British citizens of the overseas territories might be represented either in the UK or in the European Parliament. These are not idle questions; they are very serious matters to which we must return in Committee. As I said earlier, I do not expect to receive full answers to all, or any, of the questions that I have raised this afternoon. However, for the sake of clarification, it would be helpful if the Minister could write to me on some of those points before we reach Committee stage.
	The representative from the overseas territories stressed the point that to grant citizenship and to continue to treat citizens of the overseas territories as in some way being second class meant that Britain had still not understood that its relationship with overseas territories should be based on the principle of a partnership between equals. Like his colleagues, he remained concerned--this point has already been raised--that Britain had imposed European social legislation in relation to capital punishment and homosexuality on both the government and the opposition parties of the country against the wishes of the vast majority of the island electorate; and that Britain had offered nothing in return. To his mind, this indicated that London still understood little about the benefits that could flow from a more mutual relationship.
	I raise those points because I believe them to be most important. I have visited many of the overseas territories in the Caribbean, and understand many of the problems with which the people are faced. I have great respect for those people. On such an occasion, I believe it right to raise the issues that those people have drawn to my attention. It is in that spirit that I offer them to the House this afternoon.
	It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell the House whether any discussions have taken place with the overseas territories since the Bill was published with regard to the rights and responsibilities implied by the granting of citizenship. It would also be helpful if she could indicate what steps are being taken more fully to assimilate citizens in the overseas territories into the UK structure of bodies such as the Civil Service. I have always felt that it would help in terms of improving the standards of government in the overseas territories for civil servants in those countries to gain expertise serving in this country.
	Finally, will the noble Baroness inform us of any discussions which have taken place with the neighbouring Caribbean governments on the implications of offering British citizenship to those who reside in our overseas territories in the Caribbean? These small dependent overseas territories are very much a part of the whole family--if I may so describe it--of the Caribbean, closely linked one with another. Clearly the measure will affect the relationship between the independent countries of the Caribbean and the overseas territories.
	I end as I began, by welcoming this important Bill. I am pleased that the Government have introduced it. It will certainly have my support in principle but there are a number of detailed matters to which we shall need to return in Committee.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am delighted to add my welcome to this long awaited legislation. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, so early in her career as a Foreign Office Minister and building on her success as a Foreign Office spokesman in your Lordships' House, is now able to introduce a Bill which gives satisfaction and security to many people who, in spite of being excluded from the provisions of the British Nationality Act in the past, have loyally always remained "British". I thank the noble Baroness for arranging the useful meeting in the Foreign Office to clarify some of the issues. Over the past 16 years I have had the pleasure and privilege of introducing and participating in a number of debates on issues affecting the dependent territories, now the overseas territories. The new name is a definite improvement. I had tabled a Motion on the future security and well-being of the overseas territories which was thwarted by the holding of the general election. However, I may well introduce it once the Bill has passed through its various stages as a number of issues, which are not included in the Bill, some of which have already been mentioned, remain outstanding.
	A number of issues discussed in the 1999 White Paper also remain outstanding. One concerns the human rights convention. It is important to ensure that the provisions of the convention are enshrined in the constitutions of the overseas territories which are currently under review. I refer in particular to the principle of self-determination.
	An issue of particular interest to me--it has been mentioned by my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lady Young-- concerns the educational status of university students who currently have to pay overseas student fees. As I understand the position, the Bill could affect that situation as, in granting the right of abode, it enables people to fulfil the necessary residence requirements and so avoid the fees imposed on overseas students which can be a great burden. I should be grateful for any clarification on those matters that the Minister can give. There is a definite danger, in particular as regards the Caribbean territories, that all the young people will go north to the United States where there are greater opportunities. If that were the case, the British flavour which we all hope will endure would be lost.
	In previous debates in your Lordships' House the one message that came through loud and clear was that of citizenship and the right of abode. That issue will be resolved through the Bill. Many noble Lords will remember--the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has already mentioned this--the sterling work of Lord Iveagh who, sadly, is no longer a parliamentary Peer. In the past he represented strongly and consistently the wishes of the Saints--the people of St Helena--in relation to British citizenship in particular. He must be rejoicing over the publication of the Bill and regretting that he cannot participate on this occasion.
	This is a short, simple Bill which was clearly explained by the Minister. I hope that it will remain a short and simple Bill as it is important that we get the issues of citizenship and right of abode resolved. However, as has been mentioned, there are other issues outstanding. I have some further questions to add to those already posed. The Explanatory Notes refer to the right to renounce the citizenship granted; in other words, people will not be forced to become British citizens. There is no reference to that in the Bill; presumably it is a provision of the British Nationality Act. As the Falkland Islanders have had that right since 1983, when they acquired the right to British citizenship, can the noble Baroness tell me, as a matter of interest, how many, if any, have renounced that right since then?
	Further, what effect will the Bill have on the relationship with the European Union? My noble friend Lady Young mentioned that point. Presumably, citizens from the overseas territories, who will be British citizens and will have the right of abode in this country, will also have the right of abode in other European Union countries.
	I seek clarification on the commencement date, to which the noble Baroness referred in her opening remarks. It would be helpful to be given a rough idea of the time-scale involved. I refer in this connection to the matters raised by my noble friend Lady Young to which she desires a response from the Minister. What consultation will take place between the passing of the Bill and its implementation?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall respond immediately to that point. Citizenship will be granted immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, passports will be issued later because the relevant officials will need to be trained. That commencement date will be announced in an order presented to the House.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that speedy response. I was about to finalise my remarks by once again welcoming the Bill. I wish it a speedy passage.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I join the general chorus of welcome for the Bill which is one of the later steps in the disposal of our empire in the interests of its citizens. I thank the Government whose record in this matter has been exemplary. I have no complaints with regard to delay. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that on the whole we should be grateful for the speed with which the Bill has been brought forward.
	If I am prompted to intervene, it is because I was the first person to raise the problems of St Helena in your Lordships' House after a gap of about 15 years. I was followed by many others, including Lord Iveagh. Of the speakers in this debate, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and I are the only two who have been to St Helena and talked to the people there. I have addressed the CPA in much the same way as he did.
	I shall concentrate on the citizenship of St Helena. Citizenship was granted irrevocably by Charles I. It was taken away, quite wrongly, by Parliament in surrender to the largely racist opposition to immigration at the time. This Bill will by no means be the last legislation on the issue. I understand that discussions with St Helena and its dependencies will examine their constitutional future. The relationship of Ascension to St Helena is particularly fraught. On the one hand, although many of the inhabitants are Saints they do not want to come under the St Helena Government who are regarded as remarkably conservative in outlook--not in the best sense of the word. On the other hand, if one is to encourage tourism--it must be one of the economic developments although it has to be limited for various reasons--Ascension and St Helena as a package is more attractive than either territory alone.
	We must now be expecting an even greater influx of Frenchmen to St Helena given the latest theories about the death of Napoleon, an issue which has always been a fairly large factor in tourism. Has the Minister anything to say about the status of Longwood, the house and gardens where Napoleon lived? I understand that it had some kind of consular status. Is there a problem there? Have the French Government been consulted on that?
	I hope that the Minister will be in place to deal with the many future problems which may arise. A large number of species threatened with extinction exist in the overseas territories, in particular St Helena and Tristan da Cunha. The Foreign Office has already acted well with regard to sooty terns. The issue seemed to cause the noble Baroness some amusement on the first occasion although I think that she has since come to terms with it. We need to act to protect endangered species in those islands.
	It is clear that the debate could have been far greater in length. St Helena, the Indian Ocean territories and Gibraltar raise major problems, quite apart from the Caribbean about which I am not qualified to speak. Noble Lords have been somewhat conservative in their approach. We have not raised too many issues. The Minister's attitude to the problem is welcomed by all noble Lords. I hope that the noble Baroness will still be in place to deal with the problems which will undoubtedly arise in the future. I look forward to her reply and to future action once the Bill has been passed. I and my party give the Bill the heartiest of welcomes.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister and the House for not being in my place at the opening of the debate. I confess that having had a knee operation I decided that I could not change my physio appointment. It seems right that there should be fit rather than unfit noble Lords in this Chamber.
	I welcome the Bill. I do not criticise the Government for the time taken in bringing it forward. I welcome in particular the thrust of the Bill: that there should be a new partnership between the current dependent territories and the United Kingdom.
	Two key elements arise from the Bill. The central element is that of British citizenship. Each of the territories mentioned in the Bill has its own form of local government, consultative council or whatever it may be. I am not expert enough to know whether it is appropriate to that territory's situation. The key element which will affect each territory is two-fold. First, every United Kingdom Bill which comes forward must be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I imagine--the Minister may have announced or will announce--that those provisions will apply to each dependent territory.
	Secondly--this needs re-emphasising--the convention contains nothing about self-determination. Self-determination is wrapped up in a UN charter. It was confirmed recently by the International Court of Justice. That affects two of the territories--Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands--and we never know who else may be affected. But self-determination and the right of the people in any one of those territories to decide for themselves what they wish to do is crucial.
	I do not know St Helena. Assisted by Terry Waite, I have in the dark teed off a golf ball on Ascension Island in order to reopen the Ascension Island Golf Club on my way to Gibraltar. I would welcome an opportunity to go to St Helena. I hope that there will be a response to the plea--it may well be supported by noble Lords on other Benches--from my noble friend Lady Young for progress on an airport.
	I also take an interest in further and higher education. I hope that the Minister will address the points that have been raised by noble Lords across the House on that issue.
	The key point on which I should like to spend a few moments is the voice of the people from those distant parts of the world. I had a quick look at the arrangements for the French overseas territories and departements. I had forgotten the scale of their territories. Independence has not moved as swiftly in the French departements and territoires overseas as perhaps it has in the British Overseas Territories. I asked the French Embassy how many people there were in Guadeloupe. The figure--422,000--rather dwarfs the population of St Helena, as do the figures for Martinique, at 381,000, and Reunion, now estimated at well over 600,000.
	The principle is that all those places, some of which are very distant, send deputies to the equivalent of our Commons and senators to the equivalent of your Lordships' House. One of them--Guadeloupe--also sends a deputy to the European Parliament. Numbers should in some ways affect the eventual resolution to the problem, but individual UK citizens have a right to have their voice heard.
	I suggested in my written submission to what we now euphemistically call the Wakeham commission that this House should have one or more person particularly nominated to look after the interests of the territories. I do not believe that the provision of an address at the Bar is an adequate safeguard for the people of the territories. The introduction of people's Peers and the opportunities and changes of forthcoming consultation provide a wonderful opportunity to address the issue of the voice of those people.
	With the exception of Pitcairn, there are four spheres of influence: the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; St Helena; the West Indies; and Gibraltar. Cyprus is a slightly different issue. There is no reason why there should not be four nominated Members of your Lordships' House who have particular interest or knowledge--hopefully both--to take on that role. I am sure that there would be volunteers across the Chamber. I do not wish to compete with anybody, but I would certainly volunteer for the area of the Falkland Islands and others would volunteer for other parts. One volunteer is worth half a dozen dragooned Peers one way or the other.
	There is a particular problem with Europe. The territories have to have access to the debates in Europe on an elected basis rather than an executive basis. One has only to look at the equivalent of Hansard for the European Parliament to notice how often the interests of those parts of the world are debated. It is fundamental that they should have a voice.
	I greatly welcome the Bill. I wish it a fair passage and I hope that the opportunity will not be lost to give those important British citizens their voice in our Parliament. I hope that we shall welcome them to this Parliament.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, this has been an interesting and extremely helpful debate. I am grateful to all those who have participated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, the Bill is relatively short, but nationality issues are always sensitive and often emotive. The Bill's citizenship provisions directly affect tens of thousands of people in territories as far apart as Bermuda and Pitcairn Island.
	The strong message that emerges from the debate is that the Bill commands widespread support across the Floor of the House. I thank noble Lords for their positive comments about the meeting that we had on the Bill and about my role in that.
	The passage of the Bill will send a welcome message to the people of the overseas territories, who, as I said in my opening remarks, have waited a long time for its introduction. They will take a close and continuing interest in the progress of our debate.
	I shall try to answer as many of the specific questions that have been raised as possible, but I shall write to noble Lords on some of the detail and put my answers in the Library of the House to allow all noble Lords to see what I have said.
	I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, about the use of the term "dependent". The 1999 White Paper was called Partnership for Progress and Prosperity. I stress the term "partnership", because we want to reflect the reality of that partnership in the Bill. It is not about being politically correct. It is about reflecting the true nature of that partnership. I am pleased that other noble Lords have welcomed that change.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about consultation with the overseas territories and whether our proposals had been fully discussed. The Bill was discussed at the annual consultative council meeting between Her Majesty's Government's Ministers from across Whitehall and the Chief Ministers from the territories. It was also discussed at a major seminar with representatives from all the overseas territories, which was held in the British Virgin Islands in September last year. I have sent all Chief Ministers a copy of the Bill and other information.
	All those who have spoken have raised questions about rights, obligations and responsibilities. The Bill grants citizenship, and with it the right of abode. Other rights come into effect on the basis of residence. I shall write to those who have asked about education, social security and other provisions, because I have detailed answers in each case, but those issues relate to residence criteria rather than to citizenship. The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised about medical treatment and education fall into that category.
	The noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, specifically pressed me on education. Access to education and differential fees is based on residence, not citizenship. However, it is open to individual universities to interpret the regulations on fee status. In that sense, I welcome the King's College initiative, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also pressed me on human rights. The issue has not been abandoned. Capital punishment has been removed from the statute books of the overseas territories. Judicial corporal punishment has been abolished in all overseas territories. Homosexual acts in private by consenting adults have been decriminalised by Order in Council. We are funding a broad range of human rights programmes in all the overseas territories. That includes looking at children's rights, women's rights and migrant workers' rights.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, asked specifically about the opportunity to work in the European Union. British citizenship will mean that British Dependent Territory citizens will have the right of abode in the United Kingdom and the right of free movement and residence, and with it the opportunity to work in European Union member states.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about costs. The change in citizenship status will occur automatically for most people and there will be no costs to cover. However, some cases may attract a fee. I shall write to the noble Baroness about that. I confirm to noble Lords that passport fees will be charged on the basis of the fees set by the Passport Agency world-wide. Therefore, the price will not vary.
	With regard to numbers--a matter also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings--we estimate that approximately 200,000 people could become British citizens on commencement of the Act. The number is an estimate because it is as yet impossible to tell exactly how many people will benefit.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pressed me on points relating to the environment. In March this year, it was announced that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would make available £500,000 to support a project to be implemented by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the administration of Ascension Island to restore the sea bird breeding colonies. In the last financial year, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's environment fund for the overseas territories successfully disbursed more than £0.5 million to fund 30 different projects spread across almost every overseas territory.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, the noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, all asked me questions in relation to St Helena. Particular concern was expressed about the welfare of the people of St Helena. I make it absolutely clear that the British Government make a substantial contribution in terms of supporting St Helena. We have made £29 million available over the current three-year period. That assistance includes £1.5 million per annum to subsidise shipping services.
	In relation to proposals for a new ship or airport at St Helena, we have always made our position clear. We have agreed to provide funding equal to the least cost solution--that is, a new ship or a new airport--to maintain physical access. The options report is now under consideration by the St Helena Government.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about governors' uniforms--a point that I believe he made in his response to the gracious Speech. The number of posts which require a diplomatic uniform is now very small, although most governors of overseas territories are still expected to wear them. Many people regard the traditional image of a governor in uniform as out of date. However, the governments and people of the overseas territories generally regard uniforms as an important symbol of the link to the United Kingdom. Uniforms are still expected to be worn on ceremonial occasions, such as Remembrance Day and the Queen's Birthday. The current policy is for territories which want their governors to wear uniforms to meet the cost themselves. However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will consider meeting the cost of uniforms for governors of territories which receive UK budgetary aid. That includes Montserrat.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, asked me specifically about renunciation of citizenship. The provisions for renunciation of British citizenship are, and will continue to be, made by Section 12 of the British Nationality Act 1981. Statistics are not kept in such a way as to enable me to say how many British citizens from the Falkland Islands have renounced that citizenship.
	I was pressed by many noble Lords on the issue of parliamentary representation. Overseas territories are not constitutionally part of the United Kingdom; they are separate legal jurisdictions. Therefore, it is not appropriate for them to be represented directly in the British Parliament and to take decisions on British legislation and internal UK domestic matters.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me about public service. The public servants of the overseas territories are employees of the overseas territories' governments. We are in discussion with all overseas territories with a view to developing a programme of secondment and training for overseas territories civil servants from the FCO's good government fund.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me about the situation in Kenya. In 1985 the citizenship provisions of the Kenyan constitution were amended. In consequence, since 1985 persons born in Kenya acquire Kenyan citizenship automatically at birth only if a parent is Kenyan. Where that is not the case, the possibility arises of statelessness. Existing provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981--in particular, Schedule 2--provide for the acquisition of British nationality by the otherwise stateless children of British parents. Those provisions satisfy our obligations under the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, also asked me whether people in Montserrat have the right to vote. All existing British Overseas Territories citizens and Commonwealth citizens have the right to vote in UK elections if they fulfil the residence and registration requirements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked what would happen if one of the territories became independent. The nationality consequences of independence would be dealt with in a separate Act of Parliament. In the past, the usual practice was to withdraw British nationality from the majority of those acquiring citizenship of the new state on independence day but to provide for its retention where the person concerned had a residual connection--for example, through a parent or grandparent--with the United Kingdom or with a place which nowadays would be referred to as a "British Overseas Territory". However, it would be inappropriate to speculate on how such matters might be handled in the future, and the British Overseas Territories Bill does not give voice to any assumptions in that respect.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, also asked me specifically about Clause 4. In some territories there are problems with regard to illegal immigration. Those problems are such that we wish to ensure that a filter operates to prevent illegal immigrants using the new legislation as a stepping stone to the United Kingdom. Registration or naturalisation as a British Overseas Territories citizen will act as such a filter. I shall write further to the noble Lord if he wishes to have further information on that matter.
	The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about the status of Longwood in St Helena. I have been passed a note by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which I shall read and which I hope is accurate. I have been told by the noble Viscount that it is not consular territory. The land is owned by a foreigner; namely, the Republic of France, as is the site of Napoleon's empty tomb. The consul lives in his own house adjacent to Longwood. I thank the noble Viscount for that information. I can add that we have funded the establishment of the National Trust in St Helena. I believe that that organisation will take on some responsibility for the preservation of a major part of the heritage of St Helena.
	The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, asked me specifically about the right of self-determination. The Bill does not affect that right; indeed, the right is reflected expressly in the constitutions of Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.
	I have been advised that, in my haste to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, my answer was not entirely accurate. The granting of citizenship will not be immediate as from Royal Assent. It will take effect when a commencement order is made by the Secretary of State once the passport issuing arrangements have been sorted out. We hope that that will be as soon as possible after Royal Assent. However, the change of name from British Dependent Territories citizen to British Overseas Territories citizen will take immediate effect.
	I believe that today's debate will send a clear message to the people of the overseas territories that we have their interests at heart and that we are making progress towards delivering the commitment made two years ago to grant British citizenship. I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Disturbances in Bradford

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The Statement is as follows:
	"I believe that the response of the whole House will be to make it clear that we cannot and will not tolerate the wanton destruction and violence we have witnessed over the past few days.
	"The message must be unequivocal and unwavering: whatever the debate about alienation and disaffection, attacking the police, destroying the well-being of the local community and playing into the hands of organised groups will simply not be tolerated.
	"The facts can be recounted briefly. The banning order on all marches and processions in Bradford for three months had been in force since 4th July. The police were aware of reports of extreme right-wing elements seeking to defy the ban.
	"Fighting began in the town centre in the late afternoon as efforts were made to disperse an Anti-Nazi League rally. The fighting shifted from the city centre to the Manningham area in the early evening, by which time the police themselves were the focus for attack.
	"Missiles, including petrol bombs which had clearly been prepared in advance, were thrown at the police by a mob numbering 400 to 500 at its peak. One hundred and sixty-four police officers were injured. Thirty-six people were arrested, only two of whom were from outside Bradford.
	"On Sunday night and Monday morning the Manningham area was quiet. Subsequently there was a serious attack on a restaurant in the Ravenscliff area and I regret to say that there was further disorder last night, involving youths throwing missiles in the Ravenscliff and Holmwood areas of the city. There have in total been 34 more arrests arising from the disorder in the city since Sunday.
	"The police commander at the scene spoke of senseless violence and criminality. I endorse his judgment and applaud the courage shown by the police themselves in dealing with the situation.
	"The damage to local businesses and the prosperity of the area will not be made good quickly. As always, the people who suffer in the long run will be members of the local community. We will wish to work with the people of Bradford to restore calm and look to the future.
	"However, let me make it clear that a pre-requisite for dealing with social ills or rebuilding confidence within the community must be to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that order is restored.
	"Following the disturbances in Oldham and Burnley, I asked my right honourable friend, the Minister of State responsible for crime reduction, policing and community safety, to draw together an inter-departmental ministerial group. That has met twice already. He will today be publishing preliminary results of wider action proposed by that group in addressing the concerns in a range of communities across the country and how, in conjunction with local people, the Government can do more to minimise the risk of further disorder.
	"I wish to stress that we are not seeking to impose solutions from Whitehall or to lift the responsibility that must rest at local level, but we are seeking from local communities possible ideas on how young people can be further aided in taking up opportunities for recreation and other activities over the summer months--in particular, measures to bring different religions and racial and community groups together.
	"I now propose to take that work a stage further. The ministerial group will undertake an urgent review over the summer of all the relevant community issues. It will be supported by a small, dedicated review team of people with the right skills. That team will seek views from people on the ground in the areas which have suffered violence, as well as in other places with similar social and demographic features which have not. The aim will be to draw lessons that can inform future policy at national, local and community levels.
	"That group will continue its work and be complemented by the development of longer-term proposals from the Performance and Innovation Unit based in the Cabinet Office.
	"There are many lessons to be learned from past as well as present events. The intelligence of practical planning issues for the police is one such challenge. We now need to ensure that the professionalism and experience of our police service is made available quickly and effectively to prevent further disturbance.
	"The Association of Chief Police Officers has already held one meeting of commanders under the auspices of the "national operations faculty" to establish what lessons can be learnt not just in preventing, but also in bringing to a rapid conclusion, the kind of disorder that we saw on Saturday evening.
	"I shall wish to discuss with ACPO how we might build on that initiative, pooling such experience and ensuring that operational commanders can find sources of advice immediately in helping them to deal with these exceptionally difficult situations.
	"The vast majority of people in our society, regardless of their ethnic background, want the same things for themselves and their children. As we share common goals, it has to be to find a way of working and living together successfully.
	"Our aim is to create an inclusive society, local communities which meet the needs of all groups, and a dialogue that transcends differences. Organised thugs from whatever background or standpoint undermine that possibility and that is why the threat from them must be met head on.
	"The message from today is that we will not accept the destruction of hard-won improvements in the most difficult areas of our country; nor would local people forgive us if we do not provide them with the protection that they deserve."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. Your Lordships' House contains quite a number of Peers who have great experience of race relations matters, including, from today, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, who is most welcome. We all look forward in particular to seeing his report on the situation in Bradford, which was written before these outrages but which is, nevertheless, very up to date, important and relevant.
	Does the Minister recognise that we fully agree with the Home Secretary that there are no excuses for that violence and destruction, and that the restoration of order is a pre-requisite for dealing with any social and economic ills?
	As the Statement made clear, the outrages fundamentally involve criminal violence, which must always be resisted. Of course, we must also try to understand the causes of the start of the violence and the reasons why it spread so fiercely and lasted for so long. Those reasons undoubtedly lie partly in the difficult economic and social problems in Bradford, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred earlier.
	It appears that the violence was launched by a small minority of extremists. Everyone supported the ban on marches and the National Front march appears to have been successfully stopped. Can the Minister say how far extremists from the Anti-Nazi League were responsible for starting the trouble, as the Statement hinted?
	Can the Minister also say something about police numbers in West Yorkshire? I refer not to police numbers during these difficult times--there appears to be an entirely sufficient number of police dealing with the situation--but to the numbers required to carry out normal police duties and to ensure that relations between the police and the public are improved.
	On water cannon and other strong measures that have been mentioned in connection with this matter, can the Minister confirm that their adoption would be a decision for chief constables and not primarily a matter for the Home Secretary? It is unacceptable for our police to have to stand and be bombarded hour after hour with petrol bombs, bricks and worse missiles, until 164 of them and several police horses are injured. We would support any chief constable who thought that water cannon or other measures would be of use in such situations. The police have the relevant experience and responsibility and they should take that decision.
	Our sympathy is with the injured police and with the citizens of Bradford whose lives have been so appallingly disrupted.

Lord McNally: My Lords, on occasions such as this we want to do more than just go through the motions of applauding the courage of the police when faced with such a situation. When one is on the front line it must be extremely frightening, and the way the police behaved on that night shows the discipline of our forces. We also express sympathy for the wider community.
	We welcome the intention to further co-ordinate government action and to review community policy in these matters. But I confess that I worry a little about the tone of some of the statements that have been made since this riot. An American observer once said, "It is possible in a democracy to build your support on the un-young, the un-poor and the un-black. But do not be surprised if your cities burn". Policies have to go beyond middle England to areas of real deprivation if the police and other authorities are not to be faced with the problems that were faced last weekend.
	We must therefore go beyond the ritual condemnation of senseless violence and criminality--"We will not tolerate wanton destruction and violence"--that is the given in any society. We must look to our new Home Secretary for the imagination to go beyond those stock responses. And does the Minister agree that this is a good time to place on record the immense contribution that our Asian community has made to our society over the past 30 or 40 years, from the virtual saving of our corner shop by numerous Mr. Patels, to some of our most successful job-creating entrepreneurs?
	That is why the statistic given earlier today was all the more shocking. Was not the Minister truly appalled at the statistic that only 31 per cent of the 16 to 25 year-old male ethnics in Bradford are employed? Is not that the kind of issue that really demands indignation and immediate action? Have the Government ruled out a Scarman-type inquiry that would allow a broader look at the issue in Bradford and other northern cities?
	While on the question of support for the police, does the Minister worry, as I do, that yet again this is a white police force trying to provide law and order? This is a city which has had a substantial ethnic community over a long period, yet so far as I can see--it would be interesting to see the statistics--I would guess that less than 3 per cent of that force come from the ethnic community. The police must take on board the reality that they have to recruit from the ethnic communities if they are going to be able to police effectively.
	The noble Lord mentioned our latest recruit, the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and I hope we are able to use his experience and expertise. Even the leaked parts of his report show what a deep and fundamental problem needs to be tackled here, both in education and housing, and the virtual apartheid that is taking place in Bradford and other communities. Those are the seeds of disaster and violence.
	We must look at how we deal with this problem that has occurred in the north of England. It is a community brought up to work in a textile industry that no longer exists. That generation may have brought with it the usual passivity of an immigrant community, grateful for the opportunity to work, but the sons and daughters who see themselves as Britons are not going to tolerate second-class citizenship; constant jibing of "Paki"; the sport of "Paki-bashing". We must deal with bringing those communities into our society and we will not do it if we only employ 31 per cent of them.
	Finally, in relation to the activities of the extremist groups, in such a tinder box both the far right and the far left will make mischief. So is the Minister aware that we believe that all the democratic parties should stand shoulder to shoulder at these times and resist the damage to our communities done by those extremists? There is a sense of urgency and we must move beyond the soundbites of how tough we are going to be to a real programme to deal with some of the underlying problems. That will give a greater sense of confidence, not least to those communities themselves.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the overall tone of the two responses from the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally. We have tried to go beyond the soundbite--I do not believe it was a criticism, though it is easy for people to slip into that.
	But there will not be any excuses and the restoration of law and order is a pre-requisite for doing the other works. That is fundamental; otherwise the public at large will feel that they are being deserted or held to ransom and we are not prepared to accept that.
	I do not know and have no information to share with the House regarding the precise nature of the Anti-Nazi League demonstration. It is quite clear that the march ban was accepted. But there is evidence from other parts of the country which shows that those who wish to oppose the far right from the far left seek to have their demonstration even though the other one was banned. That has led to difficulties, as was said by one of the newly-elected Members of the other place in a newspaper yesterday. That happened in his constituency before the election. There have been difficulties throughout the year. It is not wholly related to the past few weeks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about police numbers in West Yorkshire. He is absolutely right. To the best of our knowledge on the evenings and days in question, as indeed as I speak now, there is no issue in regard to adequate numbers. The numbers were supplied. They had been requested under mutual aid and the police were out on the street. But I believe that the noble Lord was asking a wider question and he deserves an answer.
	I can give figures for Greater Manchester and Lancashire if required. In West Yorkshire the police had 4,815 officers on 31st March this year, which is seven fewer than in March 2000 and 394 fewer than in March 1997. There does not seem to be a reason why West Yorkshire has experienced such a large drop compared with the Lancashire constabulary, which has eight more than in 1997, and Greater Manchester with only 13 fewer than in 1997. There is no budgetary reason and nothing untoward about the money that has been allocated. I understand that there will be an extra 92 recruits from the Crime Fighting Fund allocation and probably a net gain of 200 this year. But in response to the disturbances and the current situation there is no shortage of police.
	I confirm also, in respect of water cannon and other police equipment, that they are operational decisions for the chief constable. They are not matters for Ministers. Ministers do not police cities; the police police the cities. That is the way it has been and will continue to be. It is our job to provide the resources for the chief constables, but those are wholly operational matters. I share the views of the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, that he expressed when answering questions in relation to baton rounds. They kill people. But no one is raising that issue.
	In respect of our attempts to co-ordinate, Whitehall has produced a large number of programmes. Neighbourhood renewal programmes are taking place in some 80 inner city areas of the country, divided up based on the enumeration districts. Therefore, we are attempting to target those areas as well.
	Among 12 major English cities, Bradford has below average rates of violent crime, burglary and vehicle crime, but surveys show that the perception of crime and disorder is increasing. There is no doubt that drug misuse is a major concern and heroin is a rapidly increasing problem. There has also been a steady increase in racially-motivated incidents reported to the police.
	I regret that I was unable to remain in the Chamber for the whole of Question Time today, but I am aware of the figures given by my noble friend Lady Hollis. They are appalling. The greatest asset of any country is the capacity and willingness of its people to work. If that asset is wasted, people's lives and economic advancement are thrown away. Therefore, getting people into work--sometimes with a carrot-and-stick approach--is fundamental. Part of the direction of many of the social security benefit changes in the past four years were made so that people can no longer say, "I am better off not working". However, there are still pockets of concern and those pockets can be split in terms of the ethnic origins of people. However, that is outwith the mainstream of policy and we must certainly do more in that area.
	I regret that I do not have figures on the make-up of the police force. I do not argue with the assertion in the question. The numbers of those in the police force from ethnic minorities are extremely low. However, I do not necessarily accept that in order to do a professional job we need to have a mixed police force, although a mixed force would send out the right signals in a mixed community that is segregated by housing policies.
	In many of our inner cities there is a completely false market in housing costs. Houses that are worth twopence-halfpenny sell for thousands of pounds. Those in the ethnic communities want to live together, not just for reasons of safety, but to be near to their families, near to the mosque or the temple and near to schools. That results in segregation in our cities. Certain areas are almost nominated de facto for certain communities, which is not good for multicultural living in this country. In many of our inner cities there is a complete distortion of the housing market which becomes a real problem when one tries to carry out housing regeneration programmes. However, I do not have an answer. People can ask questions about this matter, but, as the Home Secretary said, it would be better if people came up with a few answers.
	It is important that democratic parties stick together. It is now July and before long we shall be into the local elections for next year. There is no time to waste. Democratic parties must come together and work with their respective supporters to push forward the democratic credo: votes in ballot boxes, mature argument, good investment in the communities, in education, in the economy and in health, and a fundamental head-on meeting of the anti-democratic forces. We do not need to snuff out or to ban anti-democratic forces, but we need to meet them head-on with the arguments. If that is carried out in a mature and a responsible manner, backed up with all the programmes that government, both local and national, are carrying out, we have a reasonable chance of achieving wider support from the community to protect and advance itself.

The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford regrets that he is unable to be present today. As noble Lords will understand, he is fully engaged. He sends his apologies to the House and trusts his brother from across the Pennines to speak the truth on his behalf. That is quite an undertaking when one remembers the red rose and the white rose.
	In the Manchester diocese we have experience of recent difficulties in Oldham. Burnley is just up the road and now we have Bradford. I understand that I must ask questions and not make a speech. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the complexity of the situation. I mention "complexity" in two or three different contexts. One is that the young people involved in the Bradford riots were not simply Asians, but a mixture of Asians, Afro-Caribbeans and white Brits. In other words, we are talking about young people as well as ethnicity.
	Secondly, the experience in some of the other communities has been that young people may want to live next to the mosque, with people from their own country, but this generation of young people, who were born in Britain, no longer feel obedient to their parents and grandparents or to the imams in the mosque, as did previous generations of people from Asia or the Afro-Caribbean. Having put up with much racism from white people over the years, they are now sufficient in numbers to exert their strength and to copy the yobbish behaviour of some of our white teenagers. We must admit and own that.
	As to the complexity of the situation, the leaders are condemnatory of the violence, but feel equally powerless to exert leverage on young people in the way in which we, miles away from Bradford, may imagine. Do we understand the complexity of the young people? Do we understand the complexity of acquiring new jobs for Asian and other young people in Oldham and in Bradford?
	Yesterday we were discussing shareholders and millions of pounds and I had come from a hearing on debt and poverty. But will people invest in Oldham and Bradford now? Local authorities and government must take the initiative to help in relation to unemployment.
	Thirdly, there is the complexity of the police. We hope that the police will be able to recruit many ethnic young people. Having lived and preached in Manchester and having met regularly with senior police officers and chiefs of police across the North West, I ask whether people are aware of the complexity of attracting young people of ethnic groups into the police force.
	Finally, comments have been made about the tone. Any talk about ethnic relations in England now is fraught with difficulty and tension. Having recently listened to the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, lecturing in Salford about the brittleness of community relations and sensitivity, we need an inquiry that goes beyond the sound-bite, deep into our young people's anxieties, despairs and alienation. Who will do that and how will it be done? I am glad to hear that the Government have in mind how it will be done and which young people from local communities in Bradford will be involved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I respect what the right reverend Prelate has said on his own behalf and on behalf of his colleague. He is quite right about the pressure on young people these days. Unfortunately, some of their elders believe that the villages that they left 30 years ago are still the same, whereas young people today know that they are not. Within the families and the communities there are massive internal pressures as people come to terms with the situation. They want to maintain their culture and their heritage. They do not like being lumped together by their ethnic origins. There may also be a religious factor. Some of them say, "I was born here; call me British". It is a complex problem. We shall seek to do our best to involve young people in some of the programmes. However, positive local leadership is required and not the empty barrels of the sometimes self-appointed leaders in the various communities who, in the past, have spoken up loudly but have not actually spoken for anybody other than themselves.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, perhaps I can remind the House of a question that I asked 12 days ago on preventing these riots spreading to other towns. At the weekend I saw on television my old home town of Bradford burning and with riots in the streets. I felt a sense of despair, although I did not feel a sense of surprise. Unless a huge amount of work is carried out on preventing more riots in other towns--we all know where they are--there will be more.
	Do the Government understand that it is not only necessary to talk to all the usual organisations, all the community leaders--usually middle-aged men--and all the local agencies, but that they must also talk to the young Asian people concerned, who, utterly misguidedly, go on to the streets to "defend their areas and to defend their families"? All that they are doing, in fact, is wrecking their communities and fighting the police. Those young people must be involved in the discussions locally to find solutions, not just in the long run--I welcome everything in the Statement about that--but also in relation to what will happen next week or the week after if a gang of white thugs, whether or not linked to the BNP or the National Front or just tanked up out of the pub, come out on to the street and start a riot.
	My experience of talking to such young people is that there is a great deal of unfocused anger among young Asian men, many still teenagers, and that they are unable to focus that anger in a positive direction. However, unless it can be appeased and they can take part in the plans and agreements reached about what will happen if the spark ignites in their community we shall have more such occurrences.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we shall seek to involve representatives of the younger community so that other than middle-aged men are involved. As was touched on in the Statement, we have set up a group to examine "best practice" in other cities where there has not been a problem. We want to see how they are coping so that we can learn what they have done that is different from the cities in which there have been difficulties in the past few days and weeks. This is not a widespread, national issue. Some areas with large ethnic minority groups have good community relations and there is no rioting. There is participation and community relations are good. We want to examine those good points and discover why the situation is different in some of the other cities. We need to learn that lesson fast in the next few days and weeks; it is not an issue for next month or next year.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, in particular the intention to set up an interdepartmental ministerial group. I appreciate that my noble friend is not responsible for education but perhaps for the sake of clarity I may ask him to feed in one proposition. Will the group examine the structure of education in those towns which have had difficulties, not only Bradford, in order to see whether we are failing by having educational segregation--in other words, racial segregation--insofar as some schools are mainly white and others are mainly Asian? One has only to think about Northern Ireland to see what the consequences may be if that is the case. This may be one element in the difficulties we have experienced.
	That leaves a responsibility on the Government, on local education authorities and, as regards Church schools, on the Churches. I hope that the ministerial team will examine the issue as part of their scrutiny.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the best thing I can do is to ensure that my noble friend's question and comments are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues. However, as the Home Secretary made clear, we are not going down the road of bussing. Wherever that has been tried it has not worked. There is a problem as regards catchment areas. If in these cities there is a false market in housing, by definition the catchment of local schools will result in segregation. There is a difficulty and there is no easy answer. Nevertheless, what my noble friend said will be taken on board.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Minister made the grave statement that the dangerous weapons used by the rioters were obviously prepared for the occasion. Is there to be an investigation as to how they were manufactured; how their manufacture was financed; how they were procured; how their procurement was financed; and where they were stored?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is what policing is about. In inquiring into what happened, the police will look at the causes of the incident and how it began and at the weapons and how they were put together. Molotov cocktails were used, so clearly the bottles and the fuel were obtained and the weapons prepared. There will not be a special inquiry but the police will carry out their normal duty of discovering the cause and that will cover the very points the noble and learned Lord raised.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, picking up on the high rate of unemployment among the young in Bradford, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and following on the anxieties of the right reverend Prelate about the reluctance of business to invest in such a city, will the Government consider following the excellent example of my former right honourable friend Michael Heseltine after the Toxteth riots some 20 years ago? He personally made an enormous effort to interest investors, industrialists and others in investing in the city of which Toxteth is part and did so with considerable impact.
	I followed Michael Heseltine in the job he had occupied and found myself opening facility after facility. Those had been directly inspired by the positive action by the then government to encourage businesses to recognise that they had a responsibility for some of the very deprived areas. Is that an example that might be followed?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I recall that the White Paper prepared by the then Secretary of State was entitled It Took a Riot. He had a different approach which the previous government and the present Government continued. Solving the problem is not a policing matter--it is not about containment. That is the by-product of some of the issues but we will not solve the problem by having more police and a greater containment of people. These issues transcend that. They are about investment, jobs, education and health opportunities. A great deal of investment has been planned and has been made in Bradford. Some of that has been wasted and will have to be repeated as people have destroyed part of their own community. There was £114 million from the single regeneration budget alone, Bradford having nine successful bids at various times. Indeed, £10.5 million went into the health action zone.
	The noble Lord is right in saying that there is a case to be made but, as he well knows, the task of government in approaching business is not made easier after the event. It must be done before. However, the lessons will be taken on board. I visited the area many times in my former role as shadow Minister and saw what had been achieved following the visit, initiative and commitment of the former Secretary of State.

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, does the Minister agree that more than 95 per cent of the Asian communities in Bradford, Oldham and elsewhere have been horrified to see the events of the past few weeks? Does he also agree that there have been low educational achievements in Bradford because, for instance, less than 19 per cent of young Asian men achieve five grade A to C passes at GCSE level? Therefore, is it not necessary to examine the educational achievements of the Asian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi children particularly in Bradford, Oldham and northern towns where problems have occurred? In the long term, the job opportunities and the training which follows must be preceded by a proper education at school.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in agreeing with my noble friend all I can do is repeat the words of the Prime Minister: it is a matter of education, education, education. Clearly, given the low level of attainment by so many young people there has been an abject failure in the recent past. Without qualifications there will not be any progress. My noble friend is absolutely right that this point must be taken on board in the work that is to be taken forward.

Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may commend to the Minister and the House as a whole, if he or other noble Lords have not already read it, today's in-depth and extremely informative report in the Yorkshire Post about the background to the riots. First, does the Minister agree that if the outdoor temperature in Bradford last weekend had been 20 degrees cooler than it was the disturbances would have been on a much smaller scale? Historically, rioting tends to take place when the nights are hot. Secondly, does the noble Lord agree that there are few things that young males of all backgrounds, and in all eras, enjoy more than the sound of breaking glass and the sight of leaping flames? Certainly, in the part of the East Midlands where I live, one of the favourite pastimes of adolescent males is to steal cars and set them ablaze. Does the Minister agree that to a large extent it is perhaps a problem of youth rather than race?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am aware that the matters described by the noble Lord do happen, but his observation does not apply to the majority of young people in this country. We are talking here about the involvement of a minuscule number of young people. I am aware that in our cities windows are broken, cars are stolen and so on, but the vast majority of young people lead a decent quality of life. Therefore, we are dealing with a minority, the effect of whose actions on communities is totally disproportionate, and, therefore, we must not ignore it. I am not sure I accept the noble Lord's point about temperature. If one accepted it one might go for a low temperature all year round. Would that direct us to greater efforts to look at disadvantage and discrimination in our communities and ensure that we pursued our policies at a faster pace? I accept that the temperature was up, but I do not believe that that is the reason. Issues such as deprivation, non-achievement and lack of investment must be tackled as much in the winter as in the summer. This incident brings matters to a head. I regret that I have not read the report in the Yorkshire Post but I shall do so.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while I welcome my noble friend's approach and am gratified that the Government are aware of, and are attending to, the causes of this problem, does he also agree that the symptoms are not acceptable and that to maintain police morale a fairly firm view should be taken of practices such as shining bright lights into the eyes of policemen so they cannot see the bricks that are being hurled at them? Does my noble friend agree that there must be responses from the courts which provide a discouragement while one seeks advances in education, employment, investment and so on which may eventually relieve the problem?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend's question. I saw one news broadcast on Sunday night about those lights; it was the first time I had heard them mentioned. I have not read any press reports or seen photographs of them. No one can say that this was a spontaneous uprising because of disadvantage and so on; clearly, it was planned. To use hand-held devices which look like car headlights deliberately to frustrate the forces of law and order is quite outrageous, and that must be looked at by both the police and the prosecuting authorities.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that citizenship education is a relatively new concept which deserves a much higher priority in view of recent events? What is being done in relation to that within the Department for Education, which I know is a separate matter as far as concerns the Minister?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Earl that citizenship education should apply to everybody, whether they are newcomers or indigenous. We debated last night in this House, albeit briefly, one of the latest reports on young people. From 2002 in key stage 3 citizenship will be a compulsory part of the education programme. Therefore, planning is now proceeding within the education system for the implementation of that programme.

Type 45 Destroyers

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer.
	"It is almost a year to the day since I announced to the House the decision to procure the first batch of three Type 45 destroyers as part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The Type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.
	"Since that announcement we have made good progress. The contract to complete the design and build of the first three ships was placed with BAe Systems on 20th December last year. Design work is also progressing well. An integrated design team--covering the prime contractor, BAe Systems, and the two shipbuilding companies, BAe Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft, has been established at Scotstoun for the past six months. A number of key subcontracts, such as that for the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine and much of the combat system, have now been placed. There have been a number of successful test firings of the Aster missile, the ship's main armament, which is being developed with France and Italy.
	"Progress, however, towards the shipbuilding subcontracts has been more challenging. The procurement strategy for the Type 45 was based on the allocation of shipbuilding work for the first three ships between the BAe Systems Marine yard at Barrow and on the Clyde and Vosper Thornycroft. Thereafter, it was assumed that both companies would compete for the assembly of batches of follow-on ships.
	"At the end of last year, however, BAe Systems Marine put forward an unsolicited proposal for the construction of all of the Type 45 destroyers. We have been examining this proposal carefully to establish whether it offers better value for money for the taxpayer. We have also called on the services of Rand, a highly respected independent consultancy experienced in this type of issue, to take a fresh look at possible procurement strategies for this programme in the context of the future warship programme as a whole.
	"For the current procurement strategy to work, the shipbuilding companies need to work closely together during the development and manufacture of the first batch of ships already on order. Co-operation of this kind has not been encouraged by the existence of the unsolicited proposal or by the prospect of having to compete against each other for the second batch of ships.
	"We have been keen to resolve these problems, as has industry. Working with the companies, we have developed a revised strategy which allocates work on the ships between the two shipbuilders for the whole class of Type 45 destroyers. The first of class ship would be assembled and launched at Scotstoun. The focus of design support to the whole class will remain there, with continuing participation by both shipbuilders. The remaining ships would be assembled and launched at Barrow.
	"Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth and BAe Systems Marine on the Clyde and at Barrow-in-Furness would both build and outfit substantial sections of each ship. The yards would continue to build the same sections throughout the programme to increase efficiency and produce better value for money for the taxpayer.
	"The strategy also involves a commitment now to six ships of the planned class of up to 12 ships, doubling the number on order. This larger volume of guaranteed work and stable foundation to the project will allow industry to make long-term investment decisions.
	"Subject to the completion of satisfactory negotiations, I propose to adopt this revised approach. We are confident that we can secure demonstrable value for money through this revised approach. We are seeking demanding efficiency improvements from industry. The initial findings of the Rand study support this new approach. It reflects the best features of the BAe Systems Marine bid in terms of learning from experience from one ship to the next, but also preserves the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes. The new strategy gives a welcome level of stability to our warship-building industry and, above all, offers the best prospect of achieving the in-service date for the Type 45 destroyer, with deliveries starting in 2007. Any delay would have significant operational and cost penalties.
	"Turning to the companies, this approach gives Vosper Thornycroft a defined and significant role in the Type 45 programme. The company will be able to move its operation, as planned, into the Portsmouth naval base and invest in new shipbuilding facilities there. It also provides a solid foundation from which to sustain its export business and enter competitions for future naval programmes. The company estimates that the substantial level of high quality Type 45 work should sustain a high level of some 650 jobs well into the current decade.
	"Type 45 work, together with the first three Astute Class submarines and the order for two Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSL) announced last year, should support BAe Systems Marine shipbuilding for the rest of the decade. Based on the company's own estimates, once the construction programme is up and running, work on Type 45 should sustain a steady level of some 1,200 jobs on the Clyde and around a further 900 jobs at Barrow-in-Furness. I understand that, in the light of this package of work, the company has no plans to close any of its yards.
	"This revised procurement strategy for the Type 45 destroyer is a further example of the benefits of smart acquisition, involving an integrated team approach by the key industrial partners. The companies involved welcome this new approach. I commend it to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We welcome incontrovertibly the announcement for which the Navy has been waiting for far too long. The latest delay has been from December to July. Perhaps I may ask what, in the event, was the use of having the Rand Corporation's report as we have gone back to square one? However, will that report be put in the Library of the House so that we may see and evaluate it?
	In the Statement the Secretary of State, with regard to construction, said:
	"Progress, however, towards the shipbuilding sub-contracts has been more challenging".
	What that means in English is that they have been unnecessarily delayed. I hope, therefore, that the Government will guarantee that the in-service date will not slip any further from 2007. Originally it was 2002. Can the Government give a cast-iron guarantee, not only of this date but also that the Ministry of Defence will build 12 ships? Having said that, I congratulate British Aerospace and Vosper Thornycroft on finally receiving an order, and I wish them well.
	In allocating this contract the Government have abandoned all notion of competition. With the Type 23 this brought about major savings. The current policy is a complete U-turn on government policy over the past four years. In May 2000, Sir Robert Walmsley, Chief of Defence Procurement, told the Defence Select Committee that,
	"competition does in many ways stimulate innovation. We have learned from that and we will insist on competition for the Type 45".
	He also said that,
	"if we do not compete the follow on production order there will be very little incentive for shipyards to improve their performance".
	With today's announcement, what incentives is the Minister now putting in place?
	Only British Aerospace will assemble and launch the first six ships. What is the estimate of the cost savings of operating in this manner over the lifetime of the programme? It seems to me that these savings will be nil; indeed, there is likely to be an oncost.
	Perhaps I may turn to the ships themselves. Can the Minister confirm a number of points with regard to their armaments? First, there is no anti-submarine capability when the Lynx helicopter is not operational. Secondly, the Type 45 cannot carry the Merlin helicopter. There is no platform which will allow it to operate from the Type 45. Thirdly, the Type 45 has no close in-range weapons. It has no system such as Phalanx which one might have expected to see. Fourthly, there is no anti-surface capability such as Harpoon. Fifthly, the Type 45 has no land attack capability.
	It would seem, therefore, that this contract adds new meaning to the phrase "built-in obsolescence". However, does this not confirm that the Type 45 cannot defend itself and will need protection? Surely, that must be short-termism and very undesirable. Is this not yet another instance of financial micro-management by the Treasury, saving money in the short term but being in the long term extremely expensive and undesirable?
	Having made those criticisms, to which I would be grateful for a reply from the Minister, we wish Vosper Thornycroft and British Aerospace well. I hope that both companies will now be allowed to get on with the job.

Lord Roper: My Lords, we, on these Benches, also welcome the announcement that has been made today. We are glad that progress will now be undertaken.
	The announcement is an extremely important one, not only in terms of the size of the order, now up from six to a potential 12 ships of the class--I have a question on that matter in a moment--but also, and perhaps more importantly, on the new approach to procurement which it represents and its implications in the longer term for the whole competitive base of British shipbuilders.
	The new approach which has been set out today, as I understand the matter, is that instead of dividing an order by ships and allocating some ships to one yard and others to another, is to section individual ships and allocate certain sections throughout the whole of the class to one yard and others to another yard. That is an important development. As the Minister has said, it will perhaps lead to efficiency gains. It does, however, have serious implications for competition policy and the maintenance of a competitive capacity in this country.
	There is a reference in the statement to,
	"preserving the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes".
	That seems to me to be critical. Unless we have more than one lead yard able to tender in the future, how will it be possible for subsequent classes of ships to engage in competition?
	I am glad that the Government have had the benefit of the independent report from the Rand Corporation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I hope that, subject to questions of commercial confidence, it will be deposited in the Library, or, indeed, published when it is available. Does that report indicate the costs and benefits of the new approach, because there are clearly both? Can the Minister give us the current estimate of the total cost of all 12 ships? Furthermore, can he tell us the estimated amount which will be saved by proceeding with this new approach to ordering?
	In view of our recent discussions following a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on ballistic missile defence for individual ships, can the Minister tell us whether any plans are being examined to introduce some missile defence for these extremely valuable and critical vessels?
	While recognising that the Type 45 is primarily being acquired for air defence purposes, will there be an option to introduce a land assault cruise missile capability if that is desired? Instead of there being "built-in obsolescence", as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, how much built-in flexibility is there, so that during the building period of these ships it may be possible to introduce the appropriate weapon systems?
	Finally, how far is the increase from six to 12 vessels, as mentioned in the Statement, contingent on the Government going ahead with the decision to order two aircraft carriers?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the Statement. A number of points arise from their questions. I shall not be able to answer them all in the time available. If I do not answer all of the major ones, I shall reply in writing.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that the Statement referred to the first six ships and not to the 12 ships. The hope is that in due course there will be 12 ships, but for the moment the Statement refers not to the three ships that were talked about a year ago but to the six that are to be ordered.
	I was asked about the Rand report. It is an initial report at this stage. Subject to commercial confidentiality, we see no reason why--the Secretary of State said so in another place earlier today--it should not be placed in the Library of both Houses. Rand has been of considerable assistance. It is an independent organisation and is not attached to any of the interested parties. Overall, its figures support the course the Government have decided to take.
	Both noble Lords asked about competition. There is no question of changing policy in this field. What matters always is value for money. In almost every case, competition is the best way of finding value for money. But that is not so in every case. We have come to the judgment, supported by the companies and, I think, by the House, that the way to ensure that these vital ships are built, on time--the first ship in 2007--is to take the course that we have set out. Far from being anti-competitive, there will be keen competition, not least for the two aircraft carriers to which the noble Lord, Lord Roper, referred. There is a precedent for not having strict competition in this field. I need refer only to the Astute submarines that were ordered under the previous government without, as I understand it, a full competitive process. We have to accept that, more often than not, competition is right; but occasionally what we have set out is the better way.
	I was asked about the armaments. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, was right. Sometimes in the past there has been a tendency to design ships with too much on at the first stage so that by the time they actually come into service we find that reality has moved on and the situations they have to face have altered. The watchword here is flexibility. While the ships continue to be designed and when the first ones are in service there will be provision for the ships to have different armaments. Indeed, it would be possible to have on the ships provision for land attack missiles. There is immense flexibility. That is the way we want it and that is the way the Navy wants it. That seems eminently sensible.

Lord Wakeham: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Vosper Thornycroft. As a consequence, I have been heavily engaged in these negotiations in recent weeks. I hope the Minister is aware that we at Vosper Thornycroft welcome the announcement. We will do everything we can to make a success of building the ships for the Navy, on time and to budget.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. We are also grateful for the part he has played in making sure that I could make the Statement today on behalf of the Government. It has needed both of these eminent companies--both are very important in this field--to have weighed up the advantages and disadvantages for them. We are delighted that they have come to the view that they have. I thank the noble Lord and also his opposite number.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I welcome the statement that we are to proceed with six ships. It is a pity that we have perhaps lost some momentum by delaying the initial order for the first three ships. I still remain a little unclear on the competitive, or non-competitive, approach. I shall not quote from the Statement but there appears to be a conflict within it. The Minister attempted to answer the two Front Bench spokesmen, but I wonder whether he can be a little more explicit about the MoD's reasons for deciding against a competitive approach. Normally, competition is the right way. The Minister suggested that there were special reasons in this case. Can he be explicit about what the special reasons were in this case?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for his welcome to the Statement. I shall do my best to answer his questions. There were difficulties with the strategy that arose from the continued problems that industry was having in finding a co-operative way forward. As the Statement says, the significant cause of the difficulty was the impact on the companies of the approaching competition and the existence of the unsolicited offer from BAe Systems Marine. Those two factors together made it somewhat awkward from time to time for the joint work that was necessary to be completed. All that--this is the real reason why we have come to our view--was endangering the in service date of 2007. Any delay to that date would have not only disappointed the Royal Navy but would have disappointed many people who sense that we need these destroyers to come on line as quickly as possible. For those reasons negotiations were gone into between the various parties in order to ensure that the in service date stayed the same.
	It was also important for us that both the companies--BAe Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft--continued to play an important part in the future building of warships in this country. In order to achieve that, and in order that there can be competition in the future--perhaps between them and others--it seemed to us sensible, given that we wanted to keep the in service date of 2007, to make the arrangement that we have, which will also have the benefit of ensuring that there is employment for both companies well into this decade. For those various reasons, we decided that this was the best policy to follow. But we could not have followed it if either of the companies had said "no". They said "yes"; and that is why I have made the Statement today.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and I should remind the House that I have a very peripheral interest. The Statement referred to,
	"substantial sections of each ship".
	What does that mean? Does this refer to a few compartments of a few hundred tonnes, or does it mean a full longitudinal section of each craft?
	As regards helicopters, I understand that the Type 45 destroyer will not be able to accommodate the Merlin helicopter. That strikes me as, first, rather a weakness of the ship. Secondly, we know that it will not be possible to bid competitively for subsequent batches of Type 45 destroyers. If, later on, a decision is made that it is essential that Type 45 destroyers should be able to take the Merlin helicopter, that will result in major modifications being made to the ship. However, we shall not be able to use the benefits of competitive tendering for that modification.
	Finally, it is worth noting that the first of the class is to be built at the Scotstoun yard, which is a traditional yard and is not covered, whereas the yards at Woolston and Barrow-in-Furness are covered. How will construction be undertaken in the winter? Is the construction to follow the lines of traditional shipbuilding or will it follow a high-tech line?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we are confident that the first class of craft built at Scotstoun will not only be completed on time, but also will be well put together. We have no doubt about that. That was, of course, part of the policy as set out at this time last year. So far as concerns helicopters, in due course there may well be a facility for Merlin helicopters on these ships.

Greyhounds

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, we are not quite as numerous in the Chamber tonight as perhaps we would be if we were debating the matter of foxhounds; we are debating only greyhounds. However, the quality more than makes up for the quantity.
	My choice of subject for debate has caused a certain amount of jocularity in some quarters. It appears that some noble Lords believe that it is not quite appropriate for a Peer of the realm to talk about greyhounds. However, that may be because I am associated more often with genuinely crowd-pleasing subjects such as electoral reform and the long-term care of the elderly. Perhaps I may take a moment to defend my choice of subject.
	I concede readily that there are more important subjects to discuss than the welfare of greyhounds: AIDS in Africa, civil war in Macedonia and world poverty come to mind. Of course those matters are more important and it is right that we debate them. I have even heard noble Lords, in their passion, say that our voices reach to the four corners of the earth. I have my doubts. The subject before us tonight is less important globally, but it is one that noble Lords have the power to influence--and to do so greatly for the better. That influence may have the effect of greatly improving the lives of thousands of dogs of this magnificent breed.
	I shall begin by recounting a tale of two dogs, both of which were mine. The first racing dog I ever owned was one called Park Laddie. In his day he was a good dog. He was two spots off the track record at Wimbledon and won his Pall Mall heat at Harringay; he was even quoted in the Derby betting. Unfortunately, however, Park Laddie broke a hock and had to retire. At that point the head kennel lad approached us and said that this meant that Park Laddie's career was at an end. He said, "We'll look after him for you". At the time we did not have a large house and I chose to take the kennel lad's word for it; he seemed a nice enough man. I hope that his word was true. I hope that Park Laddie, who was a lovely dog, was rehomed or that if, for some reason he was not able to be rehomed, he was painlessly put down. I hope so, but to my eternal shame, I do not know that. Furthermore, I believe that thousands of greyhound owners are in the same position.
	The second dog that I wish to introduce is our current retired greyhound, Zak. To our great pride, Zak is the current Westminster Dog of the Year. In his racing days, Zak was also a good dog who won minor open races. But at the age of five he was disqualified from a race. Then there is a six-month gap in his history. He was found wandering the streets, in a very poor condition, by workers from the Battersea Dogs Home, bless them. Soon after that, he adopted us. At this point I should tell the House that greyhounds make the most wonderful and trouble-free pets. They do not even need to be walked all that far.
	Perhaps some 10,000 greyhounds are retired from racing each year. Of those, a number under 2,000 are rehomed through the industry's Retired Greyhound Trust, although I have been told that presently there is a six-month wait before a dog can be taken by the trust. Some 1,500 dogs are rehomed through voluntary efforts. I can see sitting below Bar some of the very fine men and women who dedicate their lives to this task. Broadly speaking, that then leaves 6,500 dogs which are unaccounted for. Some may be lucky, but some are unlucky. They may be shipped to Spain, where often they are kept racing until they can no longer put one foot in front of the other. Others are abandoned, as was the case with Zak. Some are murdered, their ears cut off so that they cannot be identified and their owners brought to book.
	Most greyhound owners and trainers are caring people. They would not want their animals to suffer. However, a minority are not, and I strongly believe that if the leadership of this industry would take its responsibilities seriously in regard to retired greyhounds, that minority problem could be dealt with relatively easily.
	It gives me no pleasure to say that I am not impressed with the industry's performance in this regard. Perhaps I may illustrate that statement from my own experience. Before launching this campaign I called Mr Geoffrey Thomas, a pleasant and able man who runs the British Greyhound Racing Board, to request a meeting to discuss the matter. I telephoned four times, but I received no reply. I then wrote to him. Eventually I received a letter promising a call as soon as the Budget was out of the way. I still await that telephone call.
	Many noble Lords have been in this House for longer than I. In my short experience, every responsible industry--every firm and every pressure group--is only too eager to meet us and to put their case. Sometimes the trouble lies in trying to keep them away. That is not the case with greyhound racing, which appears to regard itself as a law unto itself.
	This is not an isolated example. Shortly before the general election, the then Minister responsible for animal welfare, Mr Mike O'Brien, wrote to the main industry players in polite terms asking what they planned to do about the welfare of retired greyhounds. I have seen the reply the Minister received from Mr Frank Melville of the NGRA. I shall not detain the House by reading extracts from his long letter, but civil servants who saw that letter can recall few occasions when a letter from a responsible Minister had evinced in reply such a piece of whining bombast.
	Sadly, this is an industry divided between its various ruling bodies and between registered and unregistered "flapping" tracks. That makes the task all the more difficult. It is unfortunate that it is also led by an unaccountable and self-regarding oligarchy which simply does not understand the necessity to take on board and react to considered criticism from outside. I think that it speaks for itself that the industry's contribution to rehousing retired greyhounds totals only £250,000 a year.
	What should the industry do? The National Canine Defence League undertakes sterling work in this field. It has set out a four-point plan: first, that the industry conducts research to find out the scale of the problem; secondly, that sufficient funds are made available to the Retired Greyhound Trust to enable it to cope with the numbers; thirdly, that there should be high profile prosecutions of owners or trainers who abandon their dogs--name and shame; and fourthly, that there should be better governance of the sport--one overarching body to take responsibility.
	I think that the priority here is money. Greyhound owners, with some Croesus-like exceptions, are not rich; nor are most trainers, who these days must struggle to make a living. In 1991 the Home Affairs Select Committee pointed out that the most obvious source of finance is the bookmakers. Here I speak as a bookmaker because I am a member of the board of the Tote. Bookmakers take well over £1 billion on dogs each year. Greyhound racing is an essential component of the betting shop product--it kept the industry going during the foot and mouth outbreak when there was no horse racing. There is even 24-hour dog racing on TV now, believe it or not, courtesy of barkingmad.com. I am ashamed to say that I watched several hours of it over the weekend. It is an experience. Money is required. I say no more today other than that I believe that progressive forces in bookmaking are prepared to put up the necessary money to deal with the problem.
	I turn now to the terms of the Unstarred Question and to ask the Government about their plans. I know all about the pressures of the legislative programme. My noble friend the Minister will be glad to hear that I am not asking for a commitment to legislation on this matter from him today. He will be even gladder to know that I am not even asking him for more money from the taxpayer today. I should much prefer that the industry puts its own house in order without legislative intervention. But I do ask the Minister to make it clear to the industry that it is on probation. If it does not do what is necessary to tackle these scandals, it will be for the Government to ask Parliament to act.
	We want a healthy greyhound racing industry of which we can be proud. "Behind our backs", say those of us who campaign on this subject, "the industry whispers that we have a secret agenda: the abolition of dog racing". In my case, and in the case of most of the people that I know, it is the reverse. We want something done to save this sport, not to destroy it. Yes, there are people who would ban greyhound racing. I have a paper in my folder from a group called Greyhound Action. It states:
	"Greyhound racing inevitably leads to massive killing and suffering. The only solution is abolition".
	Lest your Lordships think that that is a fantasy, we should remember how quickly hunting went from something that was totally accepted everywhere to the edge of abolition; we should think of Huntingdon Life Sciences. Those who are complacent should think again.
	We want greyhound racing to thrive. But it cannot do so while the abuse continues and the authorities in their complacency connive at it. I ask the Government and the House today to demonstrate to greyhound racing that Britain, a civilised society and a society of animal lovers, will not continue to tolerate the continued abuse of these magnificent creatures.

Lord Freeman: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club, as are a number of other Members of the House.
	I profess not to be a devotee of greyhound racing but I strongly support the right of millions to enjoy it. I wish the industry well. But I think it is perfectly possible to support an industry such as greyhound racing and the enjoyment it brings to many and also to be acutely concerned about the welfare of the animals. We are a civilised nation. I believe that in many ways the touchstone of civilisation can be expressed by our attitudes towards not only our fellow human beings but animals.
	An appropriate parallel can be drawn with horse racing. Not for one moment would we, as legislators, permit a situation where perhaps half the number of retiring greyhounds and half the number of retiring racehorses would be put down or abandoned. It is unthinkable. We value our horse racing industry. Although its structure is different, the way in which it breeds is different and the life-span of the animals is somewhat different, nevertheless there are no criticisms--or very few--in this country about the welfare of retired racehorses. The same should apply to greyhounds.
	I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because the debate will help to ventilate, once again the importance of the welfare of retired greyhounds. I am not aware of any of your Lordships having a hidden agenda to abolish the industry. I differ with the noble Lord in regard to legislation--I shall deal with the issue in my concluding remarks--which I am more inclined now to favour than voluntary control. But I am aware of no one in your Lordships' House who is advocating the abolition of the industry because of the problems which lie within it--which are, in my judgment, capable of solution.
	It is rather nice for the noble Lord--whom I always associate with erudite political comment in the Economist--suddenly to sprout up like a distinguished retired greyhound himself and to ventilate this issue. I am delighted that he has given us this opportunity.
	The noble Lord referred to approximately 10,000 dogs being registered each year, but, of course, no one knows the number of unregistered dogs. It is a voluntary system. Bearing in mind the tremendous number of greyhounds coming in from abroad, particularly from Ireland--and one pays tribute to some of the great racing greyhounds and their progeny which have come from Ireland--I would not be at all surprised if we are talking about 15,000 to 20,000 new dogs each year coming into the industry.
	After four years, a dog may be too old for a registered track, and after six years too old to race on an unregistered track. But then, it is to be hoped, it will have 10 years of life left. A 16 year-old greyhound is by no means uncommon. Greyhounds live for about the same length of time as spaniels.
	As the noble Lord indicated, part of the problem of the structure of the industry is that many amateurs breed and train greyhounds. It does not cost them much. It does not cost much to register a dog and it certainly does not cost much to train a dog if one is doing it as an individual for entry and enjoyment in racing, particularly unregistered racing. The real money is with the betting industry as opposed to the greyhound owners themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, rightly said.
	I find it unacceptable that any number of retired greyhounds have to be put down once their racing days are over. I suspect that I am in a minority among some of those who take an interest in the subject at the Kennel Club. Some may argue that that is the humane way to conclude the life of a sporting greyhound. I do not share that view. I believe strongly that if greyhounds are to be bred and trained for the racetrack, their owners and the industry have a responsibility to provide for a life after racing and not cut it short.
	As the noble Lord said, they are marvellous animals. I do not have the same familiarity with them as the noble Lord but, although greyhounds certainly need space--and they certainly need to be muzzled in certain circumstances when you take them out--they are "couch potatoes", if I can borrow a phrase from one of the excellent briefing papers that I have recently read. Greyhounds are easy going. They like television. I am told that they particularly like watching party political broadcasts, so they must be a breed apart.
	I suggest that we need three things. First, we need more education. Those who are buying or breeding greyhounds and entering them into racing should always be reminded of their responsibilities when their dogs' racing careers end. I know that a lot is being done but more should be done. Secondly, some of the international issues to which the noble Lord referred need further reflection. Are European Union grants for diversification of agriculture and farming being inappropriately used in some cases to expand breeding--certainly of greyhounds and I believe of other dogs--without the necessary controls and without the necessary understanding of the obligations of breeders? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that more resources are needed.
	I conclude by looking at the financing and structure of the industry. The noble Lord referred to a six-month waiting list with the Greyhound Trust. I pay tribute to what it has done in placing in happy homes each year approximately 2,000 of the minimum of 10,000 greyhounds which retire. That is a marvellous achievement. But, frankly, the trust receives only a modest proportion of the funds available to the industry--certainly from the voluntary levy, which I believe still runs at 0.4 per cent of bets placed.
	We need to do a number of things, and at some further stage this House needs to consider approaching the matter on a statutory basis. I know that such an approach was rejected by the government in which I served about 10 years ago; however, unless we can see an improvement, we should not shirk from approaching the problem via legislation. In that way we could broaden the levy and make it compulsory on bookmakers; the registration fee could be increased, thereby ensuring that a higher proportion of funding comes in to the provision of welfare, good homes and, if necessary, kennels for retired greyhounds. In the industry we should see fewer greyhounds bred, fewer entered for racing and, therefore, fewer to look after satisfactorily in retirement.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I readily admit that, until I saw that my noble friend Lord Lipsey had been successful in securing this debate, I was not an expert on the plight of retired greyhounds. Indeed, my knowledge of greyhounds was very limited, relating to greyhound betting, being a member of the All-Party Greyhound Racing Group and an occasional visitor to the Wimbledon track.
	Fortunately, in preparing for this debate I was put in touch with one of the founders of Greyhounds UK, Annette Crosbie--I hope that she will not mind my naming her and referring to the fact that she is probably best known as a distinguished actress whose thespian skills bring pleasure to millions of television viewers. She is also a key member, with many other members of the acting fraternity, of Greyhounds UK. They have done a marvellous job in drawing public attention to the plight of retired greyhounds.
	I have read the evidence prepared by Greyhounds UK for the Gambling Review set up by the Home Office, which is to report shortly. It is memorably entitled: Fat Cats, Dead Dogs. I have read some letters from Ms Crosbie to Wembley PLC, as owner of the Greyhound Racing Association. In addition, I have read some horrific case histories of ill-treatment of greyhounds, illustrated by some distressing photographs, and some cuttings from the Racing Post. From all this information it is evident that there is much wrong with the way in which greyhounds, particularly those whose racing careers have ended, are treated.
	Ten years ago, the Home Affairs Committee in another place said in its report:
	"The most pressing concern ... was the care of retired greyhounds.
	The Greyhound Racing Trust ... is 'grossly underfunded' and can only find homes for 1,500 greyhounds out of a total of 10,000 retiring each year. With extra revenue the Trust could be in a position to establish sanctuaries for those retired greyhounds which cannot immediately be placed in suitable homes.
	We believe that track owners and both on- and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust".
	In its Gambling Review evidence, Greyhounds UK claimed that since 1991 nothing had changed. It says that the bookmakers and track owners have kept their profits for themselves; that an additional 9,000 greyhounds a year become surplus to racing--there may be as large number coming off tracks which are not properly registered, giving a possible figure of 19,000 or 20,000 a year; and that the industry-controlled Retired Greyhound Trust, set up in 1974, remains grossly under-funded and finds homes for no more greyhounds than it did nine years ago.
	The Retired Greyhound Trust has no kennels of its own, but pays for a limited number of greyhounds--at present 120 at any one time. The industry admits that it takes six months to find a dog a home and that only 240 dogs a year may be funded. People have to use their own money to provide homes. Many hundreds of people around the country are doing that with great dedication.
	So what happens to the great majority of greyhounds which can no longer race? Some become household pets. Others are rescued by such organisations as the Celia Cross Greyhound Trust. But the trust has long waiting lists and has to turn dogs away through lack of space. With proper funding, the various greyhound charities could become regional centres and take in more dogs. But a very large number come to an unhappy and tragic end.
	One of the problems is the absence of information. There are no records on any kind of track about the length of a dog's racing career. When a dog leaves an NGRC track it goes out of the consciousness of the NGRC altogether. There are no records kept of dogs that are destroyed during the schooling period or of the number of dogs destroyed during their racing career. There are no records kept of injuries incurred while on the track; and there are no records kept of the number of greyhounds abandoned by their owners which are picked up by dog wardens and end up in all kinds of rescue kennels, ranging from the excellent National Canine Defence League kennels to council dog pounds where, if they are lucky, they may live for a further seven days. One vet told the World Greyhound Federation conference that he destroyed nine greyhounds every week--450 a year. Many dogs are dumped from moving cars; others are killed and thrown into ditches.
	Greyhounds UK provided evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, with photographs, of dogs that suffered abuse. The worst case was one in Scotland: 19 greyhounds were found dead, all but one drowned, in a quarry near Airdrie. All were young and of racing age. It appeared that when the local track at Wishaw had closed down the owners decided that instead of paying vets' fees to have their dogs humanely destroyed, they would get rid of them themselves. First, they cut their ears off to get rid of the tattoos that would identify them and the owners. Some dogs then had bags weighted with bricks tied around their necks. Others had their skulls smashed. The result of one post-mortem indicated that one dog had not been drowned but had been strangled by a wire tied to its neck and then to a railway sleeper. When that hit the bottom of the quarry the wire tightened.
	These facts are not disputed by the industry, and its members argue that they do produce funds to find new homes for greyhounds. This comes from the voluntary levy on punters' winnings deducted by the bookmaker and produces over £4 million a year. However, the bookmakers themselves pay nothing. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, only a very small amount of levy income goes to the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is under the control of the British Greyhound Racing Board, which is in turn made up of representatives of promoters and bookmakers.
	The Home Affairs Committee recommended that there should be greyhound sanctuaries where retired dogs may end their days, funded by the industry, and that track owners and both on-course and off-course bookmakers should donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. The committee's recommendations have been ignored, and I support my noble friend in his call for action.
	There is to be a change in the way in which betting duty is to be collected in future. That could provide the opportunity to put the funding of the greyhound industry on to a more secure footing and for the first time provide adequately for the thousands of dogs which leave the track every year.
	At the same time, there should be an independent inquiry into the welfare of greyhounds surplus to racing. There is enough evidence of appalling ill-treatment to justify urgent action to stop these animals from suffering.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I should begin by declaring in interest in that I am a member of the Labour Animal Welfare Society. I sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for tabling this Question. I do so particularly because he has opened my eyes to an aspect of cruelty to animals about which I have to say--to my shame--I was unaware until I began to look into the subject more closely.
	Coming from Market Rasen, as noble Lords will observe from my title, I have some knowledge of horseracing and have enjoyed many days visiting such courses. However, I have never been to a greyhound track; nor witnessed racing, which I know gives great pleasure to thousands of people, being the second most popular spectator sport in the country. I have to say that I am not particularly attracted to greyhounds with their lean and hungry looks. Having never been a Twiggy look-alike myself, nor having been able to run very fast, those in the canine breed to which I am more attracted are slower and more rounded, like myself. However, since my daughter drew my attention to a recent television programme in which the horrors of what happens to some greyhounds after their racing days are over were highlighted--either because of injuries received, or their age--I have begun to look upon these gentle and tender creatures in a different light.
	I believe that this Question is part of a wider debate about the whole greyhound industry. It would appear that the welfare of the dogs themselves, the safety and design of the tracks, the question of vets' attendance on all racing tracks--which is the case in Ireland but not in this country--are matters that require further consideration. A number of organisations are already putting forward ideas for improvements in the industry, including, as we heard, the Retired Greyhound Trust, the Greyhound Forum, Greyhounds UK, the National Canine Defence League, the League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPA. They are all interested in improving the greyhound industry and in stopping some of the worst practices that it has produced. In particular, as has already been mentioned, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which was established to ensure the welfare of retired greyhounds, is appealing for increased funding so that it can fight for the removal of any cruelty and for an improved status for greyhound racing. Those efforts must be supported.
	Greyhounds retire relatively early. This can be due to the fact that they are burnt out or injured, though sometimes they have become victims of drug abuse through injections designed to increase their speed on the track. Life, while racing, is miserable for those greyhounds; but, for some, there are more horrors to come. I shall not repeat the stories that we have already heard in that respect: the dumping of dogs by the wayside, the clubbing to death and, indeed, other deaths too awful to contemplate, have been itemised.
	That brings me to the question of responsibility--the responsibility of those in the industry to put their own house, which, at present, is rather rickety in some areas, in order. As I mentioned earlier, many in the industry have been pressing for improvements in animal welfare and in the safety and design of the tracks, as well as the involvement of vets at all race tracks. Both the National Greyhound Racing Club and the British Greyhound Racing Board are on record as wanting to see improvements in those areas. Let us hope that that is true. We must not, of course, assume that all greyhounds suffer such horrors. Indeed, as we have heard, many are family friends. They are pets and loved by all; they are looked after well into retirement and are greatly missed when they die.
	The real money in greyhounds relates to the betting that is intrinsic to the whole industry. This can be off-course, through betting shops, telephone betting or betting on-line--or on-course involving bookmakers at the track, who pay the track promoters a fixed fee for a pitch. I understand that most of this money is placed on the Tote, whereby all bets are pooled and then shared by the winners. On average, promoters deduct 25 per cent from the Tote bets at each track. The total turnover in 1988 was estimated to be £79 million, and the industry winnings from the betting public amounted to almost £20 million
	Having thought about this, I, too, began to consider the possibility of a betting levy. It seems to me to be the best way forward for improving greyhound racing. I believe that it could work in a similar way to the horseracing levy. If there were to be such a levy, money could be ploughed back into the industry for its betterment and that of the dogs. Surely greyhounds--the animals at the heart of the pleasure and the profit--deserve that consideration. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say something about the cruelty element involved, about which we heard from all speakers tonight. This, surely, can be tackled at once.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson who has clearly undertaken a great deal of homework on the subject. Her speech complements the introductory remarks made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. Like the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, I should declare an interest. I am a member of the Kennel Club and have been involved in the breeding, showing and judging of dogs for decades. However, I had never had--I should say "we" had never had--a racing greyhound. I had heard so many stories about them that it seemed to me that they would be very different from the deer-hounds and wolfhounds which we had owned until recently. Therefore, when we acquired a racing greyhound, I wondered what it would be like. In fact, he is the most docile, affectionate and gentle dog I have ever owned.
	I should point out that he is actually my wife's dog. I bought him for my wife when I retired from the House of Commons in order to persuade her to carry on typing for me, the House of Lords allowances for secretarial work being rather less than those for the other place. Indeed, the difference between the two is even more marked now. So I bought Jet from a trainer whom I had got to know in my constituency. I telephoned him just last night and asked him how many bad tempered dogs had figured among the hundreds of greyhounds that he and his son, the trainer Barry Draper, had cared for over decades. He could recall only one that had had a vicious temperament.
	However, many people believe that greyhounds are vicious. Therefore, I began to worry when the race track at Owlerton, Sheffield, brought in a new hare bearing a remarkable resemblance to the Norwich terrier. As Jet was going to join the company of two Norwich terriers when he retired, noble Lords will understand that I was rather worried about what would happen when we let him off the lead. We knew Jet well. Like many owners, we had visited him every weekend, taken him for a walk and given him some pilchards to eat--this was perfectly in order. Of course, trainers have to be very careful on NGRC tracks about additions to the dog's diet in case it enhances performance; but pilchards were all right. We went quite frequently to watch Jet race and rejoiced when he won. Unfortunately, those race meetings often fell on Tuesdays. As I am on "roster nights" in this House on that day, I could not always attend. I should add that my noble friend Lady Farrington just turned round and smiled at me with approval when I made that comment.
	Our trainer always knew that Jet was going to join us when he retired from racing. However, when the time came, he advised us to take Jet home a few times beforehand; and this we did. I put a muzzle on the dog, thinking that he might bite the two Norwich terriers. But they quickly asserted their "power", and the pecking order was established from the first moment. Now that Jet has been retired for quite some time, he is still number three in the pecking order. Indeed, if he wants to drink from the terriers' bowl, they carefully consider whether or not they will allow him to do so. There is no vice in the dog.
	I live near a lake and am on very friendly terms with its swan and the ducks of long residence, but Jet walks round them. The ducks and the swan take no precautionary measures because they know him quite well. They are well aware that he is not a ravening beast; he is under control. I have not put a muzzle on him since the first day that he arrived. Even though he suffered serious injury caused by some cut glass that had been dumped by an irresponsible litter-dropping person--who should be made to eat it!--and subsequently required a great deal of veterinary attention, I did not have to use the muzzle during the whole of that period. It was a pretty nasty wound.
	Like other sight hounds, the greyhound is easily civilised, obedient, biddable and utterly affectionate. I recommend greyhounds as pets. The Government wish to promote health in the community. I suggest that obese people would benefit from owning a greyhound and giving it a lot of exercise. However, there are problems in this area and I am deeply concerned by some of the points that have been made. It is not just greyhounds which are treated badly and are thrown out of vehicles on to motorways, kicked and brutalised. The Kennel Club has sought for a long time to maintain high standards as regards the treatment of dogs. It does not shrink from taking condign action against people falling within its jurisdiction who treat dogs cruelly. I applaud its efforts to maintain high standards. It is for the National Greyhound Racing Club and those involved in the sport we are discussing to introduce regulation and practice to match the standards of the Kennel Club.
	If one wishes to show a dog one has not bred, one buys it and must transfer the relevant details so that the Kennel Club knows the name and address of the person who owns the dog. There is no earthly reason why the computer held records of the greyhound industry cannot include the information I have mentioned when the ownership of a dog changes hands. That step could be undertaken at relatively modest cost.
	Change must be initiated by those who run the industry, own it and profit by it. Two changes are especially essential. First, it is obvious that the prize money offered in the vast majority of races is relatively small. Trainers are not affluent. Some trainers I know keep substantial numbers of retired dogs. However, they receive relatively small sums in terms of fees or prize money. A trainer who keeps retired greyhounds is often badly out of pocket. However, the bookies are not out of pocket. The prizes offered at greyhound races in Ireland dwarf the prize money on offer at the NGRC tracks in Britain for all but the great classic races. We need to consider the level of prize money that is on offer. An increase in the amount of prize money on offer would enable trainers to keep more retired dogs or keep them until a home could be found for them.
	The sport is beginning to prosper. If it is properly and humanely run, the sport can constitute an attractive family activity. Track owners can make large profits and not merely from the gambling that takes place. The restaurant at the Owlerton track in Sheffield is booked up three months ahead. That makes matters difficult for owners who have only one week's notice that their dog is to race. Much profit is being made but not enough of it is ploughed back into the industry to endeavour to secure high standards of treatment for dogs, to enable trainers to survive economically and to give owners an incentive to provide the number of dogs the sport needs. I refer to the figure of 1,000 imported dogs. My own dog was born in Tipperary.
	The industry needs to understand that animal welfare standards are rising. To meet those standards, and public expectations with regard to those standards, the industry must reconsider its priorities to ensure that it can hold up its head in a modern world. I see nothing wrong in the industry's conduct or in its standards of security or as regards veterinary inspections at NGRC tracks. I can only hope that the standards at NGRC tracks are emulated at flapping tracks, although several of those are in danger of closing, if they have not closed in recent years. Standards at the NGRC tracks in terms of security, honest practice and fair competition are high. One hopes to see those standards extended more widely, as many noble Lords have suggested.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Lipsey for introducing the Question. I envied him when his dog won the Westminster dog of the year award. My dog was entered in that event a couple of years ago but he had just left racing kennels at that time. The weather was appalling on the day in question. It absolutely poured with rain. A greyhound in training is carefully cosseted and is not used to being exposed to heavy rain. My dog tried to ensure that I was between him and the oncoming rain. I was wetter than him but he looked even more miserable than I. We were present on Millbank on that occasion to demonstrate that racing greyhounds are not savage beasts, but some of those who are cruel to them are.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who introduced the debate tonight needs to defend himself for introducing a subject as important as this one. He follows in an honourable tradition in this House of debates on animal welfare, particularly dogs. Those who recall the contributions of Lord Houghton of Sowerby miss his presence here tonight, even though the debate might have been somewhat prolonged by his contribution. It would be churlish of me not to remember also the contributions of the late Lady Wharton who, until her untimely death, made great contributions in your Lordships' House on animal welfare subjects. Lady Wharton and Lord Houghton of Sowerby would have contributed to the debate had they still been alive.
	This morning I telephoned the British Greyhound Racing Board and talked to authoritative people on that board. I can understand the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, faced. If I knew that the noble Lord was on the warpath, I would not make myself readily available to meet him. However, the people I spoke to did not associate my name with any problems and I was given full replies to my questions although they may have appeared somewhat nai ve to them. Many of the subjects we discussed have already been covered in the debate. There is undoubtedly a problem here. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned horses. I understood him to say that there was less of a problem with horses than with dogs. I am not so sure about that. Many horses, particularly from the lower levels of racing, disappear when their racing days are over. There is great anxiety about what happens to them after they are exported or if they disappear in this country or are perhaps sold to be made into petfood. That problem has existed for some time.
	I agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that we need legislation to govern greyhound racing and the welfare of dogs when their racing days are over. That legislation needs to cover racing on authorised tracks and on "flapping" tracks. It also needs to cover those events which are probably not well known to your Lordships and which I compare to bare knuckle fighting in the boxing world. Events such as illegal and unregistered coursing occur in outlandish places. Heaven knows what goes on. Those events often take place on racing gallops of training establishments in the late evening or early morning. When horses are taken for early morning gallops, they encounter debris left behind by groups of people racing dogs. When they are tackled, those people are extremely vicious and aggressive.
	I should like to see legislation introduced for the welfare of animals involved in competitive sports. Betting is an inevitable part of these issues. The best time for us to address this problem will be when the gambling review body produces its report. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, spoke of a betting levy. The trend at present is away from betting levies. The Home Office believes that racing industries should run their own show. The Home Office has distanced itself from gambling by passing the subject over to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am somewhat relieved because I shall not be treading on the toes of my colleagues in the Home Office when we discuss these issues.
	However, public interest matters have to be addressed. The Government cannot absolve themselves from the responsibilities of gambling in relation to events involving animals. Those discussions will arise later. I had the great pleasure of working with the late Lord Houghton of Sowerby on the dangerous dogs legislation. Unhappily, he died before seeing the success of his work on the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill--legislation which I had the privilege of introducing in this House. I have always favoured a dog registration scheme. During the former government's tenure of office, we could get no movement from them on any subject unless we gave an undertaking that we would not hammer on about a dog registration scheme. Horror stories have been described graphically by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others. We know that such things exist not only within greyhound racing but also in all areas of dog ownership. We must know the number of dogs in this country and have greater control over their ownership. A principle of dog ownership in this country is that someone is responsible for each animal.
	The National Greyhound Racing Club has detailed, comprehensive documentation and computerisation about dogs in order to combat fraud. I am not sure whether that applies with regard to the "flapping" tracks. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned the use of tattooing rather than a chip. I understand that the technology is not yet advanced enough to place a chip in a racing dog with the certainty that it will not shift in the dog's body. A chip is also tampered with easily by persons wishing to commit fraud.
	We have heard horrifying stories about ears with tattoos being removed. Although rare, that does occur. It is one of the reasons that we are debating the matter. The National Canine Defence League produced an excellent brief. The secretary of the National Canine Defence League supported and informed us throughout the dangerous dogs legislation. Many good points were made in its brief, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The RSPCA produced a very full brief. It believes that changes in law should apply to all events which involve dogs in competitive sports, not merely the NGRC-run tracks; and that vets should be independently funded. That is another good point. Vets are present at races under the NGRC rules but that does not apply generally around the world. In Australia it is not mandatory for vets to be present.
	Many aspects of dog racing and animal welfare must be dealt with notwithstanding the fact that a great deal is already being done. The Retired Greyhound Trust does an excellent job. Dogs are not necessarily easy to look after when they have finished racing although, compared with horses, there is a higher rate of success when bringing them into a domestic environment provided that they do not suffer from the results of long-term injuries. Some do not lend themselves easily to a domestic environment. However, generally speaking, greyhounds are good pets. Many people enjoy having a greyhound after its racing days are over--that is, from the age of four onwards.
	The costs of greyhound racing may be too low. It costs on average £3,500 to buy a dog and about £6 a day to keep it in training. The British Greyhound Racing Board issues videos and documentation to educate people on the ownership of dogs, advise on trainers and so on. That part of the sport is well regulated. We are concerned with other areas. I have not heard any suggestion of banning dog racing although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. There are people who want to ban steeple chasing. But events which are banned go underground and I am sure that dog racing would do so too.
	This year is the 75th anniversary of racing dogs on oval tracks. It started in the 1920s in Belle Vue, Manchester, after the limited success of racing in a straight line. The RSPCA believes that dogs racing round an oval track are subject to unnecessary injury. Racing round an oval track does not put a premium on the absolute speed of the dog but on other characteristics. That makes it a more interesting spectacle and betting event. It is not realistic to talk about making bends easier because that would have a detrimental effect on the sport.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was not sure that such a debate would reach the four corners of the world. Your Lordships will know that the most unexpected things occur. I was told that a modest contribution from me turned up in an airport in Spain when people were waiting for a delayed flight. I cannot believe that it helped them to enjoy their air travel! But issues are picked up. I am sure that your Lordships' remarks and the undoubted response by the Minister will ensure that in the follow-up to the debate some questions will have to be answered.
	The conditions for animals in the sport are not perfect. More money and more legislation are needed. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I suspect that the majority of those who have spoken are dog owners. We find the dumping of dogs repugnant, particularly when those dogs have earned their living as racing greyhounds. I have never owned a racing greyhound, but in my youth I greatly enjoyed attending race meetings. At the time I never considered what happened to the dogs at the end of their racing life or to younger dogs that did not make the grade. I know a little more about the horse world, but I do not know so much about greyhounds.
	As others have said, we know of 9,000 to 10,000 retired greyhounds. We have no idea how many more unregistered dogs there are, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said, but the total is too great and something needs to be done.
	Dogs are retired because they do not make the grade or because they reach old age and their ability to win races diminishes. The way in which dogs are abandoned appals us all. I shall not repeat the stories that other noble Lords have told. I have been sent those stories too.
	At home we have a rescue labrador who failed to make the grade as a gun dog. Fortunately for us, she was taken on by someone who was very kind and loving and I subsequently got her from that person. She has ended up in a good home, but I suspect that many others do not. She has become a special member of our family. Before her, we had a series of red setters, which are similar to greyhounds in some ways. They are not raced, but they are larger dogs. Some people who take them on as puppies do not realise their exuberance and the exercise and space that they need. As others have said, greyhounds need space and exercise, although not as much as setters. They are much more akin to my labrador. I am always delighted to hear when greyhounds are found homes.
	The debate has highlighted the time and money that is needed to put greyhounds in homes. It is not just a question of finding them homes, but a question of quietening them down after they have been involved in racing, vaccinating them to ensure that they can settle into homes and, in some cases, spaying or sterilising them.
	The plight of retired greyhounds is not a new phenomenon. Back in 1991 the Home Affairs Committee said that track owners and on- and off-course bookmakers
	"should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust".
	I believe that the trust currently gets 60 per cent of its income from a voluntary levy supported by the majority of the larger bookmakers. However, it has to raise the remaining 40 per cent of its income from normal fundraising events. As other noble Lords have said, the trust remains grossly under-funded and, sadly, it finds no more homes for greyhounds today than it did nine years ago. That is a sad situation, although it is not a reflection on the trust's efforts.
	The trust also works closely with organisations such as Battersea Dogs Home and the RSPCA, but even with all that extra work many retired greyhounds end up being destroyed, abandoned or exported to Spain, where they endure worse conditions than many animals in this country. I understand that homes are often found in Belgium. It is strange how dogs end up going to different countries. Belgium is apparently very helpful in finding homes for retired greyhounds.
	About 2,200 retired greyhounds are placed each year. On average, it takes six months to find suitable homes for the dogs and time to calm them down. I understand that in Spain it takes up to a year before such dogs are suitably placed.
	The Greyhound Forum includes the National Greyhound Racing Club, the British Greyhound Racing Board, the National Association of Greyhound Owners, the Retired Greyhound Trust, Battersea Dogs Home, the National Canine Defence League, the Blue Cross and Greyhound Rescue. That is a lot of people doing a lot of work, but we still have a problem.
	On 16th February last year in another place, Jim Fitzpatrick introduced a Private Member's Bill on the welfare of retired greyhounds. Sadly, it did not go any further, but he said:
	"I am aware that the BGRB is actively seeking agreement to increase the funding to the trust by £1 million".--[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/00; col. 952.]
	His Bill did not proceed, but I should like to know whether further talks were held and, if so, what progress has been made.
	It has also been suggested that a levy on greyhound betting similar to that which applies to horse racing should be introduced to provide funds for improving tracks, veterinary support and greyhound welfare. Some £2 billion a year is bet on greyhound racing. Have the Government come to any conclusion about that idea? I understand that the trend is away from that, but what will go in its place? The situation is dire.
	Another suggestion is the establishment of an independent authority to address the questions, complaints, criticisms and concerns that are expressed in the industry. Has such a forum been established or are the Government thinking of doing so? Does the Minister believe that the Greyhound Forum is a sufficient body to deal with such matters? If so, have the Government given a steer to the forum's deliberations and what timetable has been set for its response?
	I also understand that there is currently a voluntary levy of 0.4 per cent from punters' winnings. That amounts to £4 million a year. The British Greyhound Racing Fund takes the bulk of that money to support the capital and revenue expenses of its leisure business. Only £175,000 goes to the industry's own charity, the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is struggling to meet the demands for help. As I have already said, it has to raise extra funds from the public.
	Funding is crucial to secure improvements for retired greyhounds. At the moment, costs are unnecessarily borne by local authority dog warden services and other animal charities because of the industry's failure to take its responsibilities seriously. Surely it is time for the industry to put its house in order.
	Providing a suitable safety net will not be easy. The National Greyhound Racing Club has 33 registered tracks. In addition, I understand that there are about 35 independent tracks, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said, some of those are under pressure and closing. They give greater cause for concern than the registered tracks.
	We all acknowledge that there is a problem. We know that improvements could be made for greyhounds during their racing lives, but this evening we are focusing on what happens to greyhounds once their racing days are over. I, too, have received many briefings. I shall not repeat the comments from Greyhounds UK that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, quoted earlier. However, later in its submission it says:
	"The NGRC, the controlling watchdog of the industry, has made rules, which it implements to serve its priority. Trainers who withdraw dogs from a race because the rate of injuries that night suggests the track is dangerous are heavily fined. Owners who are proved to have abandoned their dogs with no thought for their well-being are rarely, if ever, disciplined".
	Some of the examples that we have heard tonight suggest that, while there is much good practice, others are failing the dogs and the industry.
	The industry must accept that it has a duty to reform and to govern itself better. Many issues need looking into. There are also many areas where, as other noble Lords have suggested, there is simply a lack of information.
	It is hoped that at the end of tonight's debate we shall have some solutions. The one matter on which I believe we are all agreed is that to take no action is not an acceptable option.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. I have heard other noble Lords say that the board is on probation. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Freeman suggested that at the end of the day legislation may be needed. We look forward keenly to hearing what the Minister has to say. All of us who are present in the Chamber tonight are very concerned about the welfare of retired greyhounds.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for providing the opportunity to discuss this issue. Clearly, a number of well informed Members of your Lordships' House and many people outside have taken a deep interest in this subject.
	Many noble Lords have expressed their appreciation of the animal itself. In that regard, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But many years even before Lord Houghton's time, greyhounds were the favoured animals of the Egyptian pharaohs. They have been good friends to mankind for a great many years. As my noble friend Lord Hardy indicated, it is certainly true that not only is the greyhound an aesthetically splendid and athletic animal, it is also for the most part extremely good natured.
	I must admit that I was not entirely aware of the problem before I saw the subject tabled for debate. Until the last election, responsibility for the matter rested with Home Office Ministers. It came as a slight surprise to my new department to learn that we were to take over those responsibilities. However, we relish them because they fit in very well with our other responsibilities in relation to animal welfare.
	The issue was brought home to me personally only last Saturday when, quite fortuitously, I entered the market square in Salisbury and saw someone with, I believe, four greyhounds of about four or five years of age. Two had shawls with the words, "I need a home". The gentleman in question was spelling out that these were lovely, docile and good-natured dogs. Only one of them needed a muzzle in a crowded market square. However, he could not afford to continue to keep the dogs, which potentially had a long life ahead of them. I hope that he was able to find a home for them.
	As has been indicated, good work has been done within the industry by the Retired Greyhound Trust and similar groups in promoting the welfare of retired racing greyhounds. However, as noble Lords have said, they do so within fairly tight financial constraints. According to my information, the Retired Greyhound Trust now rehomes approximately 2,000 retired greyhounds every year. That is a substantial achievement. However, the trust would like to rehome many more dogs. It is important to put across the message to the general dog-loving public that greyhounds make very good pets and that no particular problems are presented in taking them on as pets.
	My noble friend Lord Lipsey and many other noble Lords argued that we need to spend more money on the welfare of retired greyhounds. I fully accept that. The greyhound industry has achieved much in that area, and it tries to set the highest standards of greyhound welfare and integrity--probably more so than in any other part of the world. The industry currently spends some £5 million a year on the welfare of racing greyhounds. That figure includes £1 million contributed by the betting industry to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. However, the provision for retired greyhounds is not sufficient.
	As my noble friend Lady Gibson and others pointed out, a great deal of money is being made in this industry--not so much by the dog owners and those who win but by the betting industry and promoters. Concern exists with regard to the financial contribution being made. The argument has been put forward this evening that the Government should encourage the bookmaking trade to contribute more substantially to the cause. I agree with that. I believe that the off-course betting industry already encourages support for the greyhound industry, and a voluntary levy exists to encourage members to pay 0.4 per cent of bets to the British Greyhound Racing Fund. When my former colleague, George Howarth, was the Minister responsible for controls on betting, he wrote to the bookmakers' trade associations encouraging their members effectively to pass on greyhound racing's share of duty cuts in order to meet some of the wider problems.
	I recognise that a substantial increase is required in the amount of money available in this field. We need to find a mechanism for raising such money. I do not agree with the noble Viscount that legislation is required. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey that this is not a matter for government money; nor is it an issue in which a statutory levy should be imposed. I believe that the authorities within the industry have a responsibility to develop a proper mechanism and procedures by which they can ensure that sufficient money comes through them for the welfare of greyhounds and, in particular, for the trusts and others who provide homes for retired greyhounds.
	The parallel with horse racing is by no means exact. The problems that arise are different in nature. However, we are of course moving away from a statutory levy in that field and looking to the racing and bookmaking industries to negotiate directly a commercial arrangement to replace a levy. It is hoped that such an arrangement will provide money for welfare concerns.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me to give a steer tonight. I do not believe that regulation, government money or legislation are appropriate. However, the steer that I would give is that this Government believe that the industry should face up to its responsibility, as has been acknowledged on all sides of the House, and try to develop mechanisms for raising more resources in order to deal with the problem of retired greyhounds.
	For the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and others, it is difficult to put a finger on the exact size of the issue. Nevertheless, it is clear that a significant number of dogs--both those which are registered and those which race less officially--should benefit from better welfare provisions when they retire.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Baroness suggested the creation of a registration system. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, suggested that a system of tattooing and chipping might be developed over time. I do not believe that we have quite reached that point. My department is considering the possibility of a voluntary scheme, but at present we are some way from moving into that area.
	Reference was made to the need to tighten up regulation of the industry more generally and, in particular, of greyhound tracks, which are outside the mainstream of flapping tracks. It is true that local authorities are already required to carry out checks on the suitability of all tracks, but it is possible that we need to examine that area. However, the gambling review body has been looking at the controls on betting, gambling and lotteries, and will make recommendations for reform. I shall not pre-empt the findings of that review this evening in so far as they relate to the topic of our discussion.
	Reference was also made to the export of greyhounds and, in particular, to their export to Spain. Again, it is difficult to obtain figures on that matter. Some anecdotal evidence on numbers exists, but the total number of health export licences for dogs of all kinds to Spain is just over 2,000. Of those, one would assume, although the records are not detailed, that only a small proportion would be greyhounds. I am not sure whether there is a tremendous trade--the UK is not a major breeder or exporter of greyhounds. The vast majority of greyhounds that race here are bred in the Republic of Ireland, which also exports to Spain. I note the concern about the treatment of greyhounds, wherever they come from. It is appropriate to pass on details of the views that have been expressed in this debate on the potential treatment of those greyhounds in Spain to the authorities in Spain, and probably in Ireland as well.
	Several initiatives that the industry has taken are hopeful. The British Greyhound Racing Board, for example, employed independent consultants to examine the safety of racing surfaces and therefore the propensity for injury to occur among racing greyhounds that would cause them to retire prematurely. That initiative should reduce the number of greyhounds that have to retire prematurely and probably with a disability.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the board's discussions and the work done by the RSPCA, the Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs Home and the National Canine Defence League. All those bodies have a role to play and all perform a stalwart service. However, at the end of the day--this is the steer that I give tonight--the industry needs to face up to its responsibilities and provide, from its own resources, more resources for the welfare of greyhounds, which have given such pleasure to the many people involved in the industry and some profit to some--not everyone who goes to a dog track makes a profit but somebody always does. Some of that money--a relatively small amount--should be recycled and used for the welfare of these magnificent animals when they retire.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.